Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S1 · Q4 Columnist: Analysts argue that as

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Columnist: Analysts argue that as baby boomers reach the age of 50, they will begin seriously planning for retirement.

Conclusion

Analysts are being overly optimistic (in thinking that baby boomers will flow money into the stock market, as they switch from consuming to planning for retirement).

Intermediate Conclusion (thus)

Boomers' retirement money will more likely flow into investments other than stocks.

Evidence

As boomers stop consuming, corporate earnings will be lower, and thus they wouldn't be able to make as much retirement money by investing in stocks.

Evaluate

For Method questions, we're just trying to characterize what kind of evidence the author used or what sort of reasoning move she made. These are the basic options they cycle through. - analogy - example / counterexample to general claim - undesirable implications of logic or plan - rule out alternatives - suggest an alternate explanation - raise an overlooked consideration - make a distinction / definition - call out a dubious assumption

Here, our author seemed to raise an overlooked consideration ...

The author is saying,

Goal

Look for any answer that we can match up with the argument. It will probably sound something like, .

The columnist's argument does which one of the following?

attempts to undermine the analysts’
Bad Evidence Match
Our author does attempt to undermine the analysts' argument, but, in typical LSAT fashion, she accepts the evidence (the premises) but rejects the conclusion. This type of answer choice (i.e. "denies the truth of the evidence") shows up a lot on Method but has never, or almost never, been correct. The analysts' premise for thinking that more money will flow into the stock market was this: - as boomers age, they'll switch from being mostly spenders to savers. Our author agrees with that, she just thinks they'll save money by investing in something other than the stock market.
6% picked this
attempts to undermine the analysts’
Bad Evidence Match
Her cited reasons for undermining the analyst's arguments are in the final sentence. This answer is trying to play off the conversational filler part of the 2nd to last sentence — "Analysts would stand to gain if this were true, but ..." The fact that someone would stand to gain from X is not the same as saying that the person is doing X for self-serving reasons. Were an author to undermine an argument by suggesting the opponent was arguing for self-serving reasons, we would call it the famous Ad Hominem flaw. The premise for saying the analysts are wrong would be a claim about self-serving reasons. "We shouldn't pay any attention to these analysts' prediction. After all, they would stand to gain by more money following into the stock market." But in this argument, the comment about "analysts would stand to gain" is an aside. It's not used to support the objection. There are actual premises (in the final sentence) presented to support the objection.
2% picked this
Correct
attempts to undermine the analysts’
Why this is right
The author is attempting to undermine the analysts' argument: they are being overly optimistic The author does draw an alternative conclusion from the same premise. The analysts' premise was that Boomers were going to switch from being primarily spenders (consumers) to savers (investors). The analysts concluded that this would mean more money flowing into the stock market, but our author concludes, and thus boomers' money will more likely flow into investments other than stocks.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% picked this
argues that the analysts’ conclusion
Bad Conclusion Match
The analysts conclusion was this more money will flow into the stock market and this author ends up concluding boomers' money will more likely flow into investments other than stocks That's a pretty concrete disagreement, whereas this answer is saying overall this author agreed with the conclusion, just thought it was a smidge too rosy. The conclusion isn't "they are being somewhat overly optimistic". It's "they are being overly optimistic". "i.e., The analysts are not correct. They are wanting to believe something that will not be true."
4% picked this
argues in favor of the
Bad Conclusion Match
The analysts conclusion was this more money will flow into the stock market and this author ends up concluding boomers' money will more likely flow into investments other than stocks That's a pretty concrete disagreement, so the author can definitely not be said to be arguing in favor of the analysts' conclusion. Also, the author uses the same evidence as the analysts (boomers are going to switch from being spenders to being savers).
1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free