PrepTest 142

Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with relying solely on the testimony of experts in a technical area.

Incorrect. The argument is pretty clear at splitting the means—lowering interest rates—from the effect—economic growth.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Colleagues Ð Interest rates should be lowered to grow the economy.
Economist Ð The economy is growing sustainably, so there's no reason to lower interest rates.

Answer Anticipation:
If we take the word of these economists, lowering interest rates stimulates economic growth. The Economist, however, argues that this stimulus isn't necessary because economic growth is already at "a sustainable rate." From there, she concludes that there's "no reason" to lower the interest rate.

Taking a step back, let's assume that sustained economic growth is good enough and we shouldn't try to increase it further. That's one reason to not lower interest rates. Could there be others? Sure! Just because one reason to take an action doesn't justify it doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons to take that action. Any answer that highlights the Economist ignores other reasons unrelated to economic growth for lowering interest rates will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump from premises that eliminate one reason for lowering interest rates to a conclusion that there is no reason to do so. This is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a conclusion is extreme—something is "pointless," "irrelevant," or there's "no reason" to do something—the argument most likely ruled out some point or reason to do it and is assuming there are no others. As with many questions on the LSAT, alternatives are ignored, making the argument flawed.

Incorrect. The Economist doesn't assume that there's no other way to stimulate economic growth. In fact, the Economist doesn't believe economic growth needs to be stimulated. The argument is about reasons for lowering interest rates, not means of achieving economic growth.

Incorrect. The Economist never states that she believes growth will become unsustainable, just that the economy is already growing so there's no need to take action to make that happen.