The recent decline in the value of dollar

[poonamchiK]

The recent decline in the value of the dollar was triggered by a prediction of slower economic growth in the coming year. But that prediction would not have adversely affected the dollar had it not been for the government's huge budget deficit, which must therefore be decreased to prevent future currency declines.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion about how to prevent future currency declines?

(A) The government has made little attempt to reduce the budget deficit.

(B) The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

(C) The value of the dollar declined several times in the year prior to the recent prediction of slower economic growth.

(D) Before there was a large budget deficit, predictions of slower economic growth frequently caused declines in the dollar's value.

(E) When there is a large budget deficit, other events in addition to predictions of slower economic growth sometimes trigger declines in currency value.

I came across this question elsewhere. Thought its good to post and see through.

OA ; D.

I must admit that i was between B and D. D does weaken the conclusion, but so does B. So what is the real difference between these 2.
P

[singh.181]

The budget deficit has not caused a slowdown in economic growth.

Argument talks about the "prediction of slower economic growth" and "drop in value of currency".

[RonPurewal]

the reason why choice (b) is irrelevant is that this is not an argument about the causes of economic growth; it's an argument about the causes of the decline in the value of the dollar.

specifically, the recent decline was triggered by predictions of slower economic growth, but the author is claiming that there must also be a sizable budget deficit -- in addition to such predictions -- in order to cause declines in the value of the dollar. in other words, the author is saying, "Without a sizable budget deficit, predictions of slow economic growth will not cause the dollar to decline."

so, then, (d) weakens this argument rather directly.

[kvitkod]

For me D strengthen the argument. It says that budget deficit may be the ultimate cause of dollar decline, since predictions exist within the budget deficit (similar to E).
Please explain, why it is not true (what is the difference between D and E).

[RonPurewal]

For me D strengthen the argument. It says that budget deficit may be the ultimate cause of dollar decline, since predictions exist within the budget deficit (similar to E).
Please explain, why it is not true (what is the difference between D and E).

please go back and reread choice (d), which explicitly states that these predictions caused the dollar to decline without the presence of a budget deficit (i.e., the opposite of what you're saying here).

[sgyoung12345]

For me I think the reason why I thought the choice was B was because of the following (wrong) logic:

slower economic growth predictions were somehow affected by deficit --> deficit causes currency drops

But to confirm that my logic is right...B is wrong because even if the budget deficit doesn't cause a slowdown in economic growth, it could still affect currency declines (thereby leaving the possibility that you might still want to reduce the budget deficit).

Correct logic?

[jlucero]

For me I think the reason why I thought the choice was B was because of the following (wrong) logic:

slower economic growth predictions were somehow affected by deficit --> deficit causes currency drops

But to confirm that my logic is right...B is wrong because even if the budget deficit doesn't cause a slowdown in economic growth, it could still affect currency declines (thereby leaving the possibility that you might still want to reduce the budget deficit).

Correct logic?

Not quite. B is wrong b/c it doesn't matter what the budget deficit causes. We are looking to prevent future currency declines. The argument is structured, such that:

prediction of slow economic growth + high budget deficits = decline in value of dollar

prediction of slow economic growth + low budget deficits = no decline in value of dollar

The argument is saying that if we don't have high budget deficits, we don't care about economic growth predictions. Maybe the budget deficits slowed economic growth. Maybe they didn't. It doesn't matter. What matters is that if we lower those deficits, this will by itself, prevent the decline in the value of the dollar. D states that this is not the case.

[parashar.mridul]

Hi Ron,

Can we say that conclusion is : To prevent future currency decline(CD), we should decrease High Budget Deficit(HBD)..
since HBD actually adversely affected the dollar drop..

Can we ignore the portion that prediction of slow economic growth lead to currency decline...This seems to be in context of the argument to divert attention from the main point about HBD being the major contributor

Thus we have : HBD causes CD..
Now to weaken this we can show that even if no HBD the CD still took place then it will weaken the arguement...

[RonPurewal]

Can we ignore the portion that prediction of slow economic growth lead to currency decline...This seems to be in context of the argument to divert attention from the main point about HBD being the major contributor

no.
the argument is, basically, "a high budget is necessary for such predictions to cause the dolllar to decline".
or, equivalently, "without a high budget deficit, these predictions won't cause the dollar to decline".

there's essentially just one way to weaken this idea—namely, to show that, even in the absence of the budget deficit, the predictions can still cause the same kind of decline.
if such things happen, then we know the deficit isn't necessary.

(nb: CR passages don't contain "tricks". there won't be any "hey, look at ME!" sentences whose sole purpose is to distract you.
sure, the text is often difficult—but that's an innate feature of the text itself, not some verbal legerdemain on the part of the writers.)

[RonPurewal]

Thus we have : HBD causes CD..
Now to weaken this we can show that even if no HBD the CD still took place then it will weaken the arguement...

oh, no, that wouldn't weaken anything at all.

e.g.,
if i drink cyanide, i will die.
your 'hbd' --> cyanide
your 'cd' --> death

if i die for some reason other than ingesting cyanide, i think it's pretty clear that the above argument is unaffected.

[RonPurewal]

by the way, that ^^ is what you should do when you review these problems: make analogies with easier, more intuitive content.

CR problems are challenging for two reasons:
1/ they're written in dense, formal text
2/ they deal with things that you just don't care about at all, and/or that are very distant from everyday life

note that "the logic is hard" is NOT one of these two. if you can construct an analogy with easier concepts, you'll almost always find the logic trivial.
e.g., in my cyanide analogy—which removes both of the barriers above—the logic is SUPER straightforward; even a seven-year-old would totally understand that "things besides x can kill you" doesn't mean that x can't also kill you.

what you need to do is reach a point where you can think just as intuitively about weird, distant, "formal" concepts as you can about the stuff of everyday life.