PrepTest 122

Incorrect. This approach itself is what leads to these problems in the future, so it's not really an explanation. It's certainly not a complete explanation since the argument relies on the lag time between the approach and its effect, as well as the public's perception of this approach, in reaching the conclusion.

Incorrect. It taking two years for the statement in question to take effect doesn't explain that statement to begin with. A statement with an explanation is a conclusion, not a premise, so we can rule this answer out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Goal of central bank - Control inflation
Primary approach - Raise interest rates
Constraint - It takes time for interest rates to control inflation, so central banks try to stay ahead of inflation
Problem with approach - The public can perceive it this early action as needlessly hurting the economy when inflation isn't bad
Conclusion - Successfully controlling inflation can make it harder to control future inflation without angering the public

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus falls into a common pattern—a goal is established, an approach to that goal is presented, and problems with that approach are explored.

However, this stimulus does break out of the pattern a little bit. Normally, the author will reach a conclusion about the approach being the right one or the wrong one, sometimes presenting a preferred alternative. Here, however, the conclusion is that the approach might be successful but cause issues with implementing it in the future because of the public's perception of it.

The statement in question for this Argument Structure question is the approach that is primarily used by central bankers to reach its goal. Since the argument relies on this approach being successful in drawing its conclusion (just with some problems associated with it), it's a premise of the argument, despite the pivot (two pivots, in fact). And there's no support for it being the primary means of dealing with inflation, so it's not an intermediate conclusion. Since the argument has a lot of pieces to it, let's start by looking for answers calling the statement in question a premise, and then analyze the details from there.

Answer Explanation:
This answer correctly describes the statement in question as a premise, and it states the conclusion almost word-for-word, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Pivots don't always indicate an opposing point. As we can see here, they sometimes indicate that the author is bringing up another consideration that complicates things.

Incorrect. It's not a conclusion—there's no reason offered as to why this is the primary means by which central bankers fight inflation.

Incorrect. The statement that this answer calls a conclusion is not—it's a premise. The statement in question isn't support for the idea that a lack of readily apparent inflation makes interest rate hikes seem needless; that statement doesn't have any support. It brings in a new concept and asserts itself as true, making it a premise.