Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S4 · Q20 Economist: Global recessions can

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: Global recessions can never be prevented, for they could be prevented only if they were predictable.

Conclusion

Global recessions can never be prevented.

Evidence (for)

Recessions could be prevented only if they were predictable.

But economists, using their best tools, consistently fail to accurately predict global recessions.

Evaluate

The author is trying to prove "can never be prevented" and provides a proving mechanism, a conditional rule using the necessary indicator "only if":

Global recessions → global recessions can are not predictable not be prevented

So the author proves her conclusion as soon as she establishes that trigger idea, that global recessions are not predictable.

However, her premise doesn't fully establish that. It only establishes that global recessions have not been predictable for economists using their best techniques.

Goal

Look for an answer saying,

Maybe future economists or people from some other discipline will innovate better techniques or theories and then one day be able to predict global recessions.

20.

The economist's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it

  1. presupposes in a premise the

    Not Circular

    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% picked this

  2. fails to establish that economists

    Not Assumed: claim to be accurate

    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% picked this

  3. treats the predictability of an

    Not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to address the possibility

    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% picked this

  5. implicitly bases an inference that

    Bad Evidence Match

    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% 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