Q20 - Global Recessions can never be prevented.

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Recessions Prevented → Predictable
Economists can't predict recessions.
Therefore, recessions never be prevented.


Answer Anticipation:
Taking a look, this argument might at first appear valid. The rule (contrapositive) states that if a recession isn't predictable, then it can't be prevented. We also learn economists haven't been able to predict recessions.

However, since we know there must be a flaw, we should dig in deeper. Looking more closely at the conclusion, it's pretty extreme - never prevented. While the premises establish current economists fail to predict recessions, maybe some other field can predict recessions. More likely, I think, would be an answer stating that economists of the future might be able to predict recessions (mainly because ""never"" is bringing in a temporal element, and the LSAT likes using that for answers).

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Circular Reasoning). This answer choice describes an argument where the premise and conclusion state the exact same thing; there's no premise that matches the conclusion.

(B) Wrong flaw. This answer would be relevant in an argument claiming economists were liars, since proving someone is a liar requires proving they stated something untrue.

(C) Wrong flaw (Illegal Reversal). This answer choice always treats the prediction of a recession as necessary to preventing it; it never treats predicting it as sufficient to prevent it. In order for this flaw to be present, the argument would have to state that a new model in fact allows recessions to be accurately predicted, then concluding that recessions will no longer be an issue for the global economy.

(D) Bingo. The argument jumps from what is true now to a statement that something will never be possible. It ignores future progress.

(E) Not a flaw. The argument states that prevention will never happen, so that must be the term the first clause of this answer refers to. Rephrasing it in that light, it becomes, "implicitly bases an inference that recessions won't be prevented since they can't be predicted." If that sounds familiar, it's because it's the contrapositive of the rule we're given. This answer doesn't describe a flaw because it describes the contrapositive of a rule we're given, and the contrapositive isn't a flaw!

Takeaway/Pattern:
This is an interesting ID the Flaw question. It has conditional logic, but the flaw isn't directly related to it. Instead, it's related to the temporal issue raised by stating something will "never" happen. So two takeaways:
1) While knowing what type of language is associated with certain flaws is super helpful, it's not enough to get all questions right. You have to also understand the underlying flaw so you can check if it's being committed.
2) When the LSAT brings up a timeline (even an extreme one, like it does here), you should consider whether that's an issue for the argument.

#officialexplanation

[jenniferreisig]

I'm going to try and explain this one but would love some input.

Premise 1: Recessions can be prevented only if they can be predicted.

Premise 2: Economists don't have the ability to predict recessions even though they use the best techniques available.

Conclusion: Recessions can NEVER be prevented.

Never is rather strong. What if one day they can be predicted?

(A) I don't fully understand this choice. I think it is wrong because the conclusion is not presupposed in the premise. No premise said that recessions can NEVER be prevented.

(B) No one ever said anything about what economists claim.

(C) This choice was tricky. I think this is wrong because it uses the necessary condition incorrectly. The predictability of the event is not required for the event TO BE prevented. The predictability of the event is required if it is preventable.

(D) Matches. Keep it.

(E) I chose this one the first time around. This still seems right to me. The economist is basing an inference that something will not occur because of the information that it is not predictable. I feel like the word "yet" is key here. Does the word "yet" put the premise in perspective relative to its affect on the conclusion drawn? Does the economist base his conclusion first then use the premise as support? He does not seem to use the premise to build the conclusion. That might help to explain why this answer is wrong. It seems similar in reasoning to (A).

Thank you.

[karamcdono]

I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, but here's why I didn't choose E.

If you treat "prevention" as the occurrence that this argument is discussing, then the argument would read: prevention (of a recession) won't occur because of the information that prevention is not predictable.

There is no information that prevention is not predictable. The information only says that the economists are bad at predicting recessions.

This is how I made sense of it in my head, hope it helps a little.

[ganbayou]

could anyone explain why B is wrong?

[lawareness]

B) is not relevant in evaluating the argument. I saw it like this:

Premises
- Global recessions could be prevented only if they were predictable. (Prevented -> Predictable)
- Economists, using the best techniques at their disposal, consistently fail to accurately predict global recessions. (~Predictable)

Conclusion
- Global recessions can never be prevented. (~Prevented)

The economist was attempting to fail the neccessary condition in order to fail the sufficient condition. But who's to say that the best techniques economist are using now won't be superseded by even better techniques that will allow them to accurately predict global recessions in the future? This is what D) is addressing.

It doesn't really matter what the economists are claiming.

[LawrenceR550]

My main takeaway from this is that in order to identify the correct flaw, when there may be more than 1, is to make sure to actually read the answer choice's flaw description. It might be slightly different from what you expected based on the initial wording.

Initially, this sounds like a circular argument. Global recessions are not preventable since they are not predictable. Even the best experts aren't able to predict global recessions, no matter how hard they try. Therefore, global recessions aren't preventable. Usually, wording in answer choice A means flaw by circular reasoning. But the conclusion doesn't actually link the premises; it doesn't say the same thing in the conclusion as it does in any of the premises it builds upon, so A is wrong.
However, if A said "the argument is circular in nature," I think it'd be a fair answer.