Economist: Global recessions can

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Circular9% picked this

   presupposes in a premise the conclusion that it purports

   This describes one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which a premise restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. This answer is almost always wrong. No premise restated "global recessions can never be prevented", nor do either of the two premises require that idea to be true.

   9%
2. B

   Not Assumed: claim to be accurate3% picked this

   fails to establish that economists claim to be able to accurately

   Since this answer choice begins with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we treat it like Necessary Assumption. Was this argument assuming that economists claim that they can make accurate predictions? No. We didn't talk about what economists do or don't say about themselves, only about whether they have / haven't made accurate predictions. The argument would be the same even if economists readily admit that they can't make accurate predictions (in fact, that negation even sounds more like a strengthener than an objection).

   3%
3. C

   Not Necessary vs. Sufficient30% picked this

   treats the predictability of an event, which is required for the event to be preventable, as a characteristic

   This describes one of the 10 famous flaws, Nec vs. Suff, in which the author presents a conditional rule in the premise that she then proceeds to apply in an illegal reversed or opposite fashion. There is a conditional statement in the premise. Prevention --- requires ---> Predictability According to this answer, the author then applies this in reverse and acts like "If it's predictable, then it's guaranteed to be preventable". But no such thing happens in the argument. The author is arguing "since it's not predictable, it's not preventable".

   30%
4. D

   Correct47% picked this

   fails to address the possibility that the techniques available to economists for the prediction of global

   Why this is right

   Since this answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we treat it like Weaken. Would it hurt this argument if we said that the techniques available to economists for predicting recessions will significantly improve? Yes! That sounds like a strong objection. That allows to argue that, "Yes, author, so far economists have not been able to predict recessions. But that doesn't mean that recessions will be forever unpredictable (and thus forever un-preventable). After all, economists of the future may have significantly improved techniques with which to try predicting recessions. Maybe in that future, where recessions can be reliably predicted, some of them can also be prevented."

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

   47%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match11% picked this

   implicitly bases an inference that something will not occur solely on the information that its

   Since this answer choice describes a 2-part reasoning move, bases an inference that X solely on Y we would ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. The conclusion is an inference that something will not occur -- preventing a recession will not occur. Is the evidence solely the information that "the occurrence of preventing recessions is not predictable"? No. First of all there are two premises, not one. Secondly, the premise that sounds like this is saying "the occurrence of recessions is not predictable". The "something" that will not occur, in the Conclusion, is different from the "something" that isn't predictable. Preventing a recession will not occur. Recessions themselves are not predictable.

   11%