Columnist: Analysts argue that as

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match6% picked this

   attempts to undermine the analysts’ argument by questioning the truth of

   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%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   attempts to undermine the analysts’ argument by suggesting that the analysts present it

   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%
3. C

   Correct87% picked this

   attempts to undermine the analysts’ argument by drawing an alternative conclusion from

   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.

   87%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   argues that the analysts’ conclusion is basically right, but suggests that it is

   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%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   argues in favor of the analysts’ conclusion, but does so on the basis of a

   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%