Speculative Bubble and Tulip Prices

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported / Too Strong: all experts4% picked this

   present the facts that are accepted by all experts in

   The first three claims in the paragraph are not attributed to any particular individual. Neither is the last claim. So, if you just skimmed the first and last lines, A could be a tempting choice. But the fourth and fifth claims in the paragraph are attributed to Mackay alone. That makes the idea that they're accepted by all experts in the field unsupported.

   4%
2. B

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   identify the mistake that one scholar alleges another

   This is the role of the 3rd paragraph, not the 2nd.

   2%
3. C

   Correct89% picked this

   explain the basis on which one scholar makes an inference with which

   Why this is right

   Paragraph 2 describes Mackay's position. This includes the facts that led Mackay to infer that the Dutch tulip market was a speculative bubble. Those facts are the basis on which he made his inference: the inference with which Garber ultimately disagrees.

   Skill tested: Paragraph Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   89%
4. D

   Wrong Role3% picked this

   undermine the case that one scholar makes for the claim with which

   Nobody is undermining in paragraph 2. The undermining begins in paragraph 3.

   3%
5. E

   Contradicted: factual errors2% picked this

   outline the factual errors that led one scholar to draw the inference

   Paragraph 2 does outline the facts that led Macky to draw the inference that he did. And since Garber disputes Mackay's inference, it's tempting to think that these facts were erroneous. But whenever we see a rebuttal on the LSAT, we need to ask ourselves "what piece of speaker 1's argument is speaker 2 disputing?" The first line of paragraph 3 tells us that Garber accepts the factual premises of Mackay's argument. What he disputes is the causal explanation Mackay infers from those facts.

   2%