Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S4 · Q15 Economist: Many of my colleagues

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

Economist: Many of my colleagues are arguing that interest rates should be further lowered in order to stimulate economic growth.

Conclusion (So)

Currently there is no reason lower interest rates further.

Intermediate Conclusion

Some say we should lower interest rates to stimulate economic growth, but no stimulation is needed.

Evidence

The economy is already growing at a sustainable rate.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Flaw and see a Rebuttal argument, we should immediately look out for the 2 famous flaws that relate to rebuttals:

1. Ad Hominem: dismissing an idea because of its source, rather than its content (saying that )

2. Unproven vs. Proven False: arguing that because people have no evidence for X or have made an unsuccessful argument in favor of X, that X is therefore false.

We got ourselves a #2, here. Some people say "we should lower interest rates further", and our author concludes that claim is false, because those people made an unsuccessful argument in favor of that claim.

They argued that we should lower interest rates for reason Y (stimulate growth) and our author said reason Y isn't applicable.

The correct conclusion, then, is

But the author concludes "So there is no reason to lower them."

Goal

Technically there could be an answer objecting to the subsidiary conclusion, saying .

But it's much more likely that they want us to complain that .

15.

The reasoning in the economist's argument is questionable in that the argument

  1. relies solely on the testimony

    Out of Scope: testimony of experts

    The author relies on one premise "the economy is already growing at a sustainable rate", not on any expert testimony.

    0% picked this

  2. confuses economic growth with what

    Doesn't Confuse

    There's no confusion like what this describes. The author knows that "lowering interest rates" can stimulate economic growth and is simply saying that the economy is already growing fine, so there's no need to stimulate it to grow.

    21% picked this

  3. Correct

    presumes that a need to

    Why this is right

    This is an extreme-sounding assumption we're accusing the author of: "stimulating economic growth is the only possible reason to lower interest rates". But the conclusion is very extreme: "there is no reason to lower interest rates". Whenever we're judging Necessary Assumption answers that present conditionals (such as the only), we can look at how they would appear as a conditional move and ask ourselves, "Did the author make that reasoning move?" no need to stimulate → no reason to lower economic growth interest rates now Yup, that matches the author's reasoning, alright. In this argument, the author rebuts the idea that we should lower interest rates to stimulate the economy. She establishes that there's no need to stimulate the economy, and then pivots to "thus there is no reason to lower interest rates".

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

    63% picked this

  4. takes what is merely one

    Not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This answer has the feel of a Sufficient vs. Necessary, the #1 famous flaw. The author does seem to accept that lowering interest rates is one way of stimulating economic growth. Does she then start acting like it's the only way to stimulate economic growth? No. Nothing she says is acting like the only way to stimulate economic growth is by lowering interest rates. Maybe she thinks that lowering taxes could also stimulate economic growth.

    4% picked this

  5. concludes that a further reduction

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Since this answer takes the form of, concludes X merely from the fact that Y we should ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Did the author conclude "if we reduce interest rates further, it will lead to unsustainable growth"? Nope. She concluded "there is no reason to lower interest rates".

    12% 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