Q13 - Robin: When a region’s economy

[timmydoeslsat]

This a weaken question in a dialogue between two people.

We want an answer choice that would weaken what Terry states, mainly his/her conclusion.

Terry's conclusion is that, "Price collapses cannot lead to economic improvement."

Obviously, we know that Robin would disagree with that. His/her entire dialogue fully explains how a price collapse is essentially part of a cycle that makes things better again (by making prices low for people to want to buy again).

Let us see if we can first see what is wrong with the conclusion that Terry reached in his/her argument.

The premise supporting Terry's conclusion is:

If people have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities -----> People cannot increase spending


Terry uses this conditional reasoning as the sole reason for concluding that price collapses cannot lead to economic improvement.


Notice that in Terry's reasoning, there are TWO sufficient conditions that must be met.

Also notice, that Terry is NOT considering those who STILL HAVE JOBS.

We want an answer choice that weakens the idea that price collapses cannot increase economic productivity.

Answer choices:

A) Economy starts to improve again? This is putting the cart before the horse. No idea associated with the economy starting to improve again would help us weaken the argument put forward from Terry. What is leading us to the economic improvement we speak of? Is it a price collapse? We do not know! Eliminate.

B) Just because people realize that the bad economy will eventually improve does not weaken the idea about price collapses not leading to economic improvement. Eliminate.

C) This is a great answer for us. Imagine what this is saying. It is telling us that even those who did not lose their jobs...they slow down their spending in a bad economy, which allows them to save money! This would give them the opportunity to take advantage of a price collapse!

D) Would not weaken what Terry states. His conditional reasoning is that people will still buy the necessities. Eliminate!

E) Does nothing to our main idea of a price collapse not leading to economic improvement. In other words, we want something that shows that a price collapse CAN lead to economic improvement. Does the fact that there are things that are stable in terms of price hurt this idea? No! Eliminate.

[noah]

I noticed we have two explanations for this question, so I'm merging them into this thread.

This question starts with Robin explaining how an economy goes through a swing:

economy falters --> many lose jobs --> spend less --> more lost jobs and general economic woes --> prices drop precipitously --> good become cheap --> people start increasing their purchases --> economy improves.

Terry disagrees with Robin's argument, specifically this part: good become cheap --> people start buying stuff, stating that people without jobs will have no money to spend, except on basic necessities.

(C) undermines Terry's disagreement, as it establishes that there is a pool of people who have some money to spend (those who remain employed and save their money).

As for the wrong answers:

(A) jumps the gun -- the economy has not improved yet!
(B) is within the scope, however realizing that the economy will improve does not mean that people will spend money.
(D) is tempting, and is a good one to leave on your first pass. However, on further review, and in comparison to (C), it should become clear that (D) simply reinforces what Terry says, namely that people will buy basic necessities during the worst of times.
(E) is irrelevant to Terry's argument. The fact that the price of SOME goods remains stable does not change whether people will have money to spend amidst an economic downturn.

Tell me if that clears it up or if you have further questions on this.

[WaltGrace1983]

I had a lot of trouble with this question when I was taking it timed. For some reason I just couldn't figure out what was going on. My LSAT instincts got me to eliminate (E) for a lack of effect on the argument (the word "some" hinted at that), (D) for redundancy, and (B) for an overall lack of precision (we don't know what impact this has on their spending).

After thoroughly reviewing this question, I really see why (C) - my initial answer - is right. It was so much clearer. However, under the time constraints I was like "whoooooooooa what is going on?!" Does anyone have any insight on why this question was much more confusing when doing it timed? I obviously know that only I will know the true answer but I am trying to figure out my weaknesses.

I wonder if it is all that conditional reasoning...

[noah]

I had a lot of trouble with this question when I was taking it timed. For some reason I just couldn't figure out what was going on. My LSAT instincts got me to eliminate (E) for a lack of effect on the argument (the word "some" hinted at that), (D) for redundancy, and (B) for an overall lack of precision (we don't know what impact this has on their spending).

After thoroughly reviewing this question, I really see why (C) - my initial answer - is right. It was so much clearer. However, under the time constraints I was like "whoooooooooa what is going on?!" Does anyone have any insight on why this question was much more confusing when doing it timed? I obviously know that only I will know the true answer but I am trying to figure out my weaknesses.

I wonder if it is all that conditional reasoning...

I think one thing that makes this question tough is that it's visually structured like an ID the disagreement, which calls upon a different mindset than a weaken question. (ID disagreement is about noticing overlap & weaken is about noticing the gap.)

Also, it's a tough gap to see. I thought Terry's response was pretty darn good!

I think part of the trick here is to downplay Robin's bit. It's really all about Terry's argument here.

I hope that helps.

[Dtodaizzle]

I think that C also makes an implicit assumption that people who lost their jobs spend less in bad economic times as well, which would give them enough savings to spend when prices collapse.

Choice C started with "Even people who do not lose their jobs..."; this would presuppose whatever the necessary condition that comes after it would also be applicable to people who did lose their jobs.