Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q25 Inflation rates will not stabilize

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

Start practicing free

Inflation rates will not stabilize unless the rate of economic growth decreases.

Evidence

Inflation rates → economic growth stabilize decreases

economic growth → full cooperation decreases of world leaders

Conclusion

Unlikely that inflation rates stabilize.

Evaluate

Since we see repeating ideas (inflation rates stable / economic growth is slowed) and conditional logic (unless / required), it makes sense to try to write the "algebraic recipe" to this argument.

P1: A requires B. A → B P2: B requires C. B → C C: A probably won't happen soon.

This argument is assuming that , so it's not airtight, but it's pretty reasonable.

Goal

We want two conditional premises that chain together. The conclusion should be saying that the head of the chain, A, is unlikely (based on an assumption that the tail of the chain, C, is a pretty unlikely concept).

25.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the reasoning in the argument above?

  1. If factory safety is a

    Weak Conclusion / Evidence Match

    The conclusion here is conditional, if not everyone's → then don't expect cooperation improved safety The original conclusion was not conditional, so that would be the quickest way to distance ourselves from this one. If we read through it and checked whether we got an A → B → C chain of premises, the two premises are conditional but they don't chain together. "Full employee participation" is the right side of both conditional premises. factory safety → full employee serious concern participation preventing/correcting → full employee hazards & accidents participation

    26% picked this

  2. If the board is serious

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The premises here do chain together, board serious eliminate about improving → organizational management efficiency redundancy eliminate dismiss a # organizational → of senior emp's redundancy And the 3rd part of the chain does sound like an unlikely idea (it's hard to fire a lot of senior employees). But the matching conclusion would be something like, "Thus, it would be overly optimistic to expect the the board to get serious about improving management efficiency".

    4% picked this

  3. Only if we thoroughly examine

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion here is conditional, arrive at optimal → delay presentation decision of proposal The original conclusion was not conditional, so that would be the quickest way to distance ourselves from this one. If we read through it and checked whether we got an A → B → C chain of premises, the two premises are conditionals that chain together. arrive at → thoroughly optimal decision examine all options thoroughly → delay presentation examine all options of proposal The correct conclusion would have said, "Thus, it would be overly optimistic to expect that we will arrive at the optimal decision".

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    If we are to produce

    Why this is right

    This ends up being our best available match, even though it's imperfect. Our two premises do give us the A → B → C chain we're looking for. Produce → conduct → huge cost safest vehicles objective overruns possible structural tests Just as in the original, the tail of the chain is a highly unlikely idea (no business wants to tolerate huge cost overruns). Like the original, the conclusion is saying that the head of the chain won't happen; we won't be getting the safest vehicles possible. Unlike the original, this conclusion is certain of itself, whereas the original conclusion only had probable strength. Often, that sort of mismatch can be a deal breaker, but this problem serves as a good reminder that we have to relax our standards somewhat if we don't find any answer that perfectly matches.

    Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    61% picked this

  5. If honesty is the best

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Instead of concluding that the head of the chain won't happen, this argument concludes that the middle of the chain won't happen. The two premises link up to give us this chain: honesty is → report last → risk our jobs + best policy years poor investors mad performance The correct matching conclusion would say, "Thus, it would be overly optimistic to think that honesty is the best policy".

    3% 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