It is primarily by raising interest

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: complete explanation2% picked this

   It is presented as a complete explanation of the fact that central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them

   This is partial support. This is a component of the explanation. This one fact is not the complete explanation.

   2%
2. B

   Not a Phenomenon / Not Explained17% picked this

   It is a description of a phenomenon for which the claim that an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect

   It's never explained why raising interest rates is the #1 tool central bankers have for curbing inflation. The fact that it takes up to two years for this tool to have an effect is not providing an explanation for why this is their #1 tool. If feels more like the opposite. "Gross! Your #1 tool needs almost two years to take effect? Can we get these central bankers a better tool? Why is this their #1 tool? I need an explanation!" When LSAT uses terms like phenomenon and explanation, we want to think about some Curious Fact or Curious Comparison that occurred or is occurring (as the Phenomenon) and the causal story behind that curious fact is the explanation.

   17%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that central bankers’ success in temporarily restraining inflation may make it harder for them

   Why this is right

   This is boring but true. Everything leading up to the final conclusion in the last sentence (signified by "Thus") was support. This answer is just saying that very first claim was offered in support for the conclusion, which is the last sentence.

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

   64%
4. D

   Wrong Role3% picked this

   It is a conclusion for which the statement that an increase in interest rates takes up to two years to affect

   This first claim is not a Conclusion. No support is provided for why we should believe that "raising interest rates is the primary way that central bankers curb inflation". As discussed in (B), the fact that it takes up to two years before raising interest rates even takes effect is a bad thing. We don't want our tools to take a long time to have an effect. If we said, It is the Target near the Walgreen's that Patrick shops at, but this Target is much farther from his house than other Targets are. Would that 2nd idea support the 1st idea? Of course not. It's an opposing idea, signified by "but".

   3%
5. E

   Wrong Conclusion14% picked this

   It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that unless inflation is readily apparent, interest rate hikes generally will be perceived

   This answer correctly identifies the first claim as a premise, but it incorrectly identifies the 3rd sentence as a conclusion. We can tell from the "Thus" in the 4th sentence, that there's no way the 3rd sentence could be the main conclusion, since the 4th builds on the 3rd. But we can't say the 3rd sentence is a conclusion because no support is offered for it. Why should we believe that ... the public will resist inflation if they don't see inflation as an obvious risk? The argument never provides support. We can imagine what support would sound like: "the public desires that the economy grow as much as possible. The public knows that raising interest rates limits growth. The public doesn't understand that interest rates being raised won't take effect for a couple years".

   14%