Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 2 · Question 4

Question prompt

Economist: Our country needs Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true Causal argument? Look for answer choice that: Shows possible alternate cause Shows cause without effect Shows effect without cause Shows the cause and effect are reversed If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation

Our ultimate goal is to find the answer choice that weakens the argument. However, it's much easier to do that if we first break down the argument and identify its flaws. Then, weakening the argument is only a matter of finding the answer choice that exploits that flaw. Causation flaws are rampant on Weaken questions, and this argument is definitely causal. Note that the economist's conclusion is prescriptive — they argue that we "should" pass laws that make it difficult for overseas investors to remove investments. Plus, the economist describes the goal that passing these laws will accomplish: these laws can sustain the economy. (In general, when a conclusion features an "if-then" statement with a "should" on the "then" side, the argument assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship — that the "then" will cause the "if.") So, the economist assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between passing these laws and stimulating the country's economy. The correct answer could weaken this relationship. It probably won't present alternative causes or "effect without cause" — those tend to show up when the argument identifies a cause of an observed phenomenon, not when the argument predicts that a cause will lead to an effect, as the economist does. But the argument could present "cause without effect," perhaps by showing that similar laws seldom preserve enough capital to sustain the economy. Moreover, experienced test-takers will recall that "should" conclusions are comparative. When an argument makes a "should" conclusion, the argument assumes that the benefits of the prescribed course of action outweigh the drawbacks. To that point, notice how the economist's solution only focuses on preventing current investors from removing capital. The economist concedes that the "country needs as much capital as possible from overseas investors to sustain the economy." The economist's solution overlooks how passing the laws might affect the country's ability to raise capital from overseas investors. After all, a law that makes it difficult to remove capital from a country you invest in might lead you to think twice about investing your money in this country. If an answer choice shows that the economist's proposed laws would seriously discourage overseas investors from investing new capital into the country, that answer choice would weaken the argument. Let's look for an answer that exploits one of these problems, but we'll keep an open mind while doing so. We'll start our analysis of each answer choice by asking, "Does this make it less likely that the economist's proposed laws will sustain the economy?"

Answer choices

  1. A
    To sustain its economy, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This answer choice doesn't make it less likely that the economist's proposed laws will sustain the country's economy. In fact, this answer choice doesn't even address the types of investments the economist discusses — investments from overseas investors. This answer choice discusses the country's investments in its own industries. The economist's proposed law doesn't deal with these investments. It may be true that the country needs to diversify its own investments and that the country needs as many overseas investments as possible. It's OK that the economist's solution only addresses the latter need. After all, the economist didn't conclude that these new laws were sufficient to sustain the country's economy.

  2. B
    Laws that would make Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    This answer choice makes it less likely that the economist's proposed law will sustain the country's economy. What's more, it does so in a way we predicted. As we anticipated, the economist's "should" conclusion overlooks potential downsides of the proposed law. If the law "would strongly discourage [overseas investors] from investing any additional capital," the country would not have as much capital as possible from overseas investors. According to the economist's premise, that would harm the country's economy. So, this answer choice weakens the economist's argument, making it less likely that the proposed laws would sustain the country's economy. And because this answer choice conforms to one of our anticipations, we can select it and give the remaining options a cursory reading.

  3. C
    The historical periods during Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This answer choice strengthens the economist's argument. If periods of economic growth historically occur during periods of high investment from overseas investors, that strengthens the economist's assumption that increasing overseas investments will stimulate the country's economy. (Experienced test-takers will recognize this as an instance of "same cause, same effect," which strengthens cause-and-effect relationships.) Because (C) strengthens the argument, we can eliminate it.

  4. D
    In countries other than Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This answer choice is tempting (it looks a lot like "cause without effect"), but it's ultimately too weak to affect the economist's argument. This answer choice essentially says that laws similar to those proposed by the economist are not perfect. But, such laws do not have to be perfect to achieve their intended effect. Even if such laws do not "entirely" prevent the removal of capital invested by overseas investors, the laws could still ensure that the vast majority of such capital remains in the country. And that could still help the country sustain its economy.

  5. E
    Two years ago, the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    Like (D), this answer choice is a bit tempting, as it resembles "cause without effect." It's easy to assume that the laws from two years ago are very similar to the laws the economist proposes and that the these laws did stimulate the country's economy (since the country continues to face economic issues now). However, neither assumption is warranted. The laws passed two years ago might differ greatly from the economist's proposed laws. Notice how this answer choice just says the past laws "placed some restrictions" on removing capital, while the economist's laws will make it "much more difficult" to remove capital. These laws might be too different to compare. Moreover, the laws from two years ago could have stimulated the economy. Perhaps the current economic issues appeared very recently. So, even though this answer choice is made to resemble a "cause without effect" weakener, it does not actually describe "cause without effect."

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 4%
  2. B Credited 79%
  3. C 2%
  4. D 14%
  5. E 2%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion