Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, but this argument doesn't simply restate a premise as the conclusion. It instead bases a prediction about the future on a conditional rule and a fact about the past/present.

Incorrect. The argument's conclusion doesn't accuse the economists of misrepresenting their abilities, so the argument doesn't need to establish the claims of the economists.

Incorrect. This answer reflects a conditional logic flaw—specifically, confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient one/an illegal reversal. While the argument does establish a conditional rule with predictability as a necessary condition ("required for the event"), it doesn't reach its conclusion by treating it as sufficient—in fact, it concludes that prevention is impossible!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Global recession prevented → Predictable
Economists consistently fail to predict global recessions
Therefore: not Global recession prevented

Answer Anticipation:
That's some extreme language in the conclusion—"never." Very strong language like that always suggests a degree mismatch, but "never" and "always" also suggest another common flaw on the LSAT—a timeline issue. Here, in stating that these recessions can "never" be prevented, the Economist is making a prediction about the future as much as a statement about the past and present. That prediction about the future is based on what has already happened—economists keep missing upcoming recessions.

In drawing a conclusion about the future based on the past/present, the argument is failing to consider that things could change. Maybe economists will develop better models, or computers will allow more accurate predictions. The correct answer should highlight this jump from what is currently true to what might be true.

Answer Explanation:
This answer correctly identifies that the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that economists might get better at predicting global recessions. If they do get better, then their prior failures might not guarantee future failures, and thus the conclusion that we can "never" prevent recessions is unwarranted.

Key Takeaway:
Strong language in a conclusion is usually related to a degree mismatch—a conclusion that's stronger than the premises used to support it. One specific way that can be true is when the strong language also has a timeline element to it—e.g., something will "always" or "never" happen. Just because something has happened in every instance so far, or has never yet happened, doesn't mean that will continue into the future.

Incorrect. The conclusion states that what will not occur is the prevention of a global recession. However, it's the global recession itself that's not predictable, not the prevention of it, so this answer doesn't correctly describe the argument.