Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q4 Economist: Unemployment will soon

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: Unemployment will soon decrease.

Conclusion

Unemployment will soon decrease.

Evidence

If total govt spending significantly goes up, unemployment will decrease.

If total govt spending significantly decreases, unemployment will decrease.

Evaluate

We ascertain that the first claim is the conclusion by seeing that the other two claims are clearly meant to work together. Conjunctions/connections like "and / but / on the other hand" show us that two claims are interacting together to move the argument forward.

Each of the conditional premises involves TWO consequences, one of which is decreasing unemployment. I didn't bother writing out the other half of each outcome, because all we care about is proving that there will be decreasing unemployment.

At first, this argument seems pretty reasonable. It seems like an Either Way You Slice It style of argument:

But we know that an argument on Sufficient Assumption can't already be airtight. There has to be some gap, so that the correct answer can make it airtight.

How would unemployment fail to decrease?

Well, I guess spending doesn't necessarily have to go significantly up or significantly down. It could more or less stay the same.

The author is presenting a False Choice (a false binary / a false dichotomy), acting like spending will either go up a bunch or down a bunch.

But she's failing to consider the middle ground, where spending basically stays the same.

Goal

We just need to rule out the possibility that govt spending will stay basically the same. We need to know that it'll definitely go up or down significantly.

4.

The conclusion drawn by the economist is properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Correct

    Either total government spending will

    Why this is right

    Well, that was quick! We're done here. This is what we wanted. This guarantees that one or the other of the two conditional premises will get triggered, and each of those conditional premises guaranteed that unemployment will decrease. So this answer gives us the Either Way You Slice It certainty that one way or the other, unemployment will decrease.

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

    86% picked this

  2. Government officials are currently implementing

    Unrelated to Goal: nothing about spending

    Since this doesn't tell us whether spending will go up or down, it doesn't do the job we need it to do.

    2% picked this

  3. If there is a significantly

    Unrelated to Goal: nothing about spending

    Since this doesn't tell us whether spending will gone up or down, it doesn't do the job we need it to do.

    4% picked this

  4. A significant increase in total

    Unrelated to Goal: nothing about spending

    Since this doesn't tell us whether spending will go up or down, it doesn't do the job we need it to do.

    1% picked this

  5. If the economy is not

    Unrelated to Goal: nothing about spending

    Since this doesn't tell us whether spending will go up or down, it doesn't do the job we need it to do.

    8% 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