Substantial economic growth

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw8% picked this

   The argument assumes the truth of the conclusion for which it purports to

   This answer choice describes Circular Reasoning, in which the author doesn't really offer any premise; she just believes what she believes. But this argument definitely had two premises that are distinct from the conclusion.

   8%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   The argument attempts to establish the falsehood of a proposition by criticizing the reasoning of those

   This answer choice basically sounds like Unproven vs. Proven False, in which we say "Since your argument for X was crappy, that proves that X is false." There's nothing in this paragraph that matches up with criticizing the reasoning of those who assert its truth. LSAT literally put that "critics of the ban" filler into the conclusion just to have room to create a trap answer like this.

   2%
3. C

   Never a Flaw3% picked this

   The argument attempts to establish a conclusion on the basis of stronger evidence than

   Haha. I don't think I've ever seen this answer (it would never be correct). There's nothing wrong with one's evidence being too good. "I think we have to acquit Johnny. You've done too thorough a job at proving he's the killer." - said no judge, ever

   3%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   The argument confuses a necessary condition for a phenomenon with a sufficient condition

   Why this is right

   Tech innovations were identified as necessary for the phenomenon of economic boom to occur, and the author is acting like as long as we know that a global ban on fuel would lead to tech innovations, we know that it would lead to an economic boom. Any time you see the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient answer choice, just ask yourself, "Was there conditional logic in this argument?" If not, eliminate right away. If so, check to see whether the author is making an illegal backwards or opposite move with a conditional relationship. The keywords in this argument that gave us a conditional were "X must be preceded by Y".

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

   70%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match17% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that because certain conditions only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon, these conditions

   If an answer says, "The argument presumes that because X, Y", then we need to match X with the premise and Y with the conclusion/assumption. Do we have certain conditions that only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon? No. We have "tech innovations" as a condition that must (i.e. always) precede substantial economic growth. So we can stop reading there.

   17%