PrepTest 111

[lcid:3542] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

During the recent economic Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Stimulus Summary

Prior to economic downturn - Regulations for lending money were tightened
Recent economic downturn - Banks lent less money
Conclusion - Relaxing the standards will result in banks lending more

Answer Anticipation

This question highlights a relatively difficult, and yet common, concept that shows up on the exam, so let’s get started!
Let’s start with the way we summarized the stimulus. Here, there’s a soft timeline established, which defined how we laid out the premises. First, there was a tightening of lending regulations, then there was an economic downturn, and at that time, the banks lent less money.
This timeline leads to a conclusion that proposes a solution of sorts - relax the regulations and see the banks lend more. In making such a prediction, the argument is assuming a causal relationship - that the regulations were the reason for the lowered amount of lending during the economic downturn.
This is where noting the timeline becomes relevant - in showing that the regulations preceded the downturn and the banks lending less money, the argument is establishing that those two things were temporally correlated. So this argument is committing a Correlation/Causation flaw.
When a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question has such a flaw present, the correct answer will generally rule out an alternative cause. Let’s find an answer establishing that something else that could have resulted in the banks lending less money didn’t happen.

Answer choices

  1. A
    the downturn did not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    This answer rules out an alternative cause of the downturn in lending by the banks - that they had less money to loan out. Since the argument assumes that the regulations were the cause of the decrease in lending, it’s assuming that other things weren’t the cause. In ruling one of those alternatives out, this answer serves as a necessary premise - after all, if the reason for the decrease in lending was the decreased availability of funds, then the cause wouldn’t be regulations, and relaxing them wouldn’t be expected to increase lending.
  2. B
    the imposition of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    What caused the downturn is out of scope - what matters is how to get banks lending again. And, if anything, the regulations causing the economic downturn would line up with the conclusion's soft recommendation of relaxing them.
  3. C
    the reason for tightening Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The reason behind those standards could have been arbitrary, bad, valid, or arguable. Whatever the reasoning behind it, we care about the actual effects of them.
  4. D
    no economic downturn is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The stimulus establishes that this economic downturn was accompanied by a decrease in the amount of money loaned by banks, and this answer contradicts that fact.
  5. E
    no relaxation of standards Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer is an argument against relaxation of the standards, so it cuts against the argument.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion