Q21 - Some government economists view

[debbie.d.park]

I am having some trouble understanding this question.

The credited answer, A, sounds like a repetition of the conclusion to me, so I had A immediately excluded thinking that it's redundant... but then I can't find a better answer. Can you please explain why A helps build the argument's logic? Was there a slight scope shift (i.e., look beyond -> examine) that I had not captured?

Thanks a lot!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

First off, you are right in thinking it's the only viable choice. This is a very hard problem, but they do make it a bit easier on us by not tempting us with super-attractive wrong answers.

You are right that (A) fills in a subtle gap --

The author's conclusion is that governments must look beyond borders if their economies are to prosper, and the primary evidence is that international trade significantly impacts prices and wages.

Let's take a look at the core:

International trade significantly impacts prices and wages

THEREFORE

The government must look beyond borders if their economies are to prosper.

Do you the gap? Where in the evidence is prospering discussed?

It's a small gap, because you assume if something has an impact you have to consider it to become prosperous -- but it's a gap nonetheless. Even if international trade is super-significant, in no way have we been given proof that it is required for prosperity. (An analogy: height is very significant to success in basketball, but you don't have to be tall to be good at basketball.)

(A) addresses this issue and then some. It is "beyond sufficient," (every significant influence is more than the argument requires) and, since this is a question that asks for a sufficient (rather than necessary) assumption, it's the type of answer we are looking for.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Mike, I got the correct answer (A) for this one but had a different core from yours. Could you please take a look at mine and see if I was just lucky to get the correct answer this one time?

I honestly thought the last part was where all the necessary information was.

So I had:

economies prosper --> gov economists must look beyond national borders

So I assumed something (since this is a sufficient assumption) that is exactly a rephrase of my "core": if economies are to prosper, then gov economists must look beyond national borders.

And (A) gives us exactly this:

national economy prosper --> every significant influence on it has been examined by that nation's government economists

Like you said, since this is a sufficient assumption question, I liked answer (A) since it had that "every significant influence" which tells me that it is ENOUGH to guarantee the conclusion. However, reading the discussion above, it does seem like I made my own conditional diagram just for the conclusion (no premise) and then circled an answer choice that restated the conclusion.

Perhaps a better answer might have been something like (using your core above):

international trade that significantly affects prices and wages leads to prospering economies of a nation.

Do you agree? Any feedback would be great!

[timmydoeslsat]

Yeah this one is pretty yucky to diagram.

I agree that the answer choices really help us out here.

We have a conditional conclusion of:

If government economists' economies are to prosper ---> Must look beyond national borders


We can see that the stimulus concluded this without having mentioned prior anything about economies prospering.

What we do know from the stimulus is that economies are international in nature and that international trade significantly affects prices and wages.


We want some help with our conclusion in it reaching something about economies prospering. We know that it will have to tie in previous evidence from the stimulus.

Answer A)

Economy Prosper ---> Every significant influence has been examined by that nation's government economies.

That is giving us a situation of when we have the situation, changsoyeon, of an economy prospering, we must have every significant influence examined.

If that is given as FACT, then it would be a VALID CONCLUSION at that point to say that "if economy prosper ---> Look beyond national border."

This is because looking beyond national border is within the group of significant influences.

It can be see as this:


Hypothetical Argument:


If books are to see well ---> Books must be printed in every single state in America

________________________________
If books are to sell well ---> Books must be printed in Utah

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello timmydoeslsat!
So is the author assuming that "international trade significantly affecing prices and wages is something that the economies need to prosper"?
And (A) gives us this since the part about "every significant influence on it has been examined by that nation's government economists" includes "international trade significantly affecting prices and wages" right?

[timmydoeslsat]

That is an interesting question with an interesting answer.

When we had the argument as this:




Some government economists believe that their economies are not internationally influenced

International trade significantly affects prices and wages

All economies are internationally influenced
_____________________________________________________

If government economists' economies are to prosper ---> Must look beyond national borders



When we see the argument as it originally was, we could have been asked a question, for example, about an assumption that the argument depends on.

A correct necessary assumption answer could have been, as you stated, that ""international trade is something that the economies need to prosper."

A simple negation of that would prove it to be necessary, as it would destroy the must factor in the conclusion.


However, once we inserted our conditional statement that is found in answer choice A, we no longer have any necessary assumptions.

Here is how the argument looks with our new sufficient assumption now being stated in the premises.




Some government economists believe that their economies are not internationally influenced

International trade significantly affects prices and wages

All economies are internationally influenced

Economy Prosper ---> Every significant influence has been examined by that nation's government economies.
_____________________________________________________

If government economists' economies are to prosper ---> Must look beyond national borders



The argument no longer assumes that international trade is something that is required for economies to prosper. This is because the necessary condition of answer choice (A) includes this aspect. It includes this aspect because we already know that international trade is significant. The necessary condition says "every significant factor," so it is covered!

[camerojg]

Still trying to refine my understanding of this argument...

It was mentioned that the credited answer actually overfills the arrow (or gap) connecting the premises to conclusion. Thus, would a less extreme yet still acceptable sufficient condition look something like "If a nation's economy is to prosper, its economists must consider international trade"? Basically, I'm asking if answer A would still be correct if we replaced "every significant influence" with "international trade." Thanks very much.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

camerojg --

I think you're on the right track, and thinking about "over-sufficiency" in the right way.

The one objection I'd make is that "international trade" is a little too specific. Even though international trade is mentioned, the core of the argument is about something a little more general -- economics are always "open systems" and nations "must look beyond national borders" which, to me, includes a broader range of outside influence than just the trade, which is mentioned as one aspect, but not defined as the open aspect of "open systems." So if you tweaked your answer a bit to generalize a little more, I think it would do the trick.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

for changsoyeon --

Just a quick comment about the core you mentioned initially --

Coming up with a core is subjective, and different cores will certainly work for problems, but I'd be a bit concerned about the type of core you came up with.

Is the author's point that "government economists must look beyond national borders?" If the argument was written slightly differently, it could be. However, I don't think the author is making a declarative statement like. His point is that if you want a certain consequence (prospering), it requires a certain input (looking beyond national borders). I would treat that entirety as the conclusion (as timmydoeslsat has done).

Imagine I made the following statement to you:

Very few people get over 170. Therefore, a person has to study hard in order to get a 170 score.

Is my conclusion that "A person will get a 170 score," and my premise "A person has to study hard?"

No. And that sort of slightly incorrect thinking will put you at a disadvantage on harder questions.

My point is not that the person will get a 170 score. My point is the entire conditional -- conclusion: 170 --> study hard, premise: very few people get over 170. (BTW, of course this is a flawed argument.)

I know it's confusing in this situation that we (Manhattan) use an arrow for core relationships and conditional relationships, but I hope the above is clear.

[LSAT-Chang]

Thanks so much for pointing that out, Mike.
I "almost" thought that the core was "170 --> study hard" until I read that the conclusion was that whole conditional since it came after a conclusion indicator "therefore" and the premise right before that indicator. I honestly get confused with the arrow indicating a conditional/core, but very rarely. Thanks for clarifying that point with me =)

[mesch04]

Can someone go through the answers and explain why the others are wrong?

[maryadkins]

Happy to!

The core of this argument is:

Economies are open systems and international trade significantly affects prices and wages

-->

For an economy to prosper, that nation's economists must look beyond national borders

What's being assumed? Well, just because economies are affected by international trade doesn't mean economists necessarily have to consider that for the country to prosper. Maybe the country could benefit from international trade whether the economists have looked into it or not!

This is a SUFFICIENT assumption question, meaning we want to make this conclusion work"”to bridge the entire gap.

(A) does this. It tells us that the only way a national economy can prosper is if "every significant influence (including international trade) is examined by the gov't economists. Bingo.

(B) doesn't bridge the gap"”"weakly" is a big tip off that it's not as strong as we need it to be. Also, notice the core doesn't actually hinge on the analogy to physics.

(C) like (B), (C) doesn't focus on the core of the argument about economics. It draws attention to the analogy, which is really just there to situate the conclusion.

(D) Okay...but do economists need to examine it or not in order for the nation to prosper?

(E) Like (D)...so what? Is the nation prospering or not?

[wooviiran]

I have trouble identifying the core of this argument.

I know it should be "economies are open system, affected by international trade" (premise) - "economists must look beyond borders if they wish their countries to be prosper" (conclusion).

But, logically speaking, isn't the physicists analogy part of the argument as well. The language "just as physicists... economists must" clearly indicate this analogy is also a premise for the conclusion.

Since this question is asking for sufficient assumption, shouldn't the answer A include the applicability of that analogy?

Anyone? Thanks!

[daijob]

Hi,

So I thought the premise includes the first sentence too and thought there is a small assumption between the first sentence and the 2nd sentence.
Specifically between "outside influence" and "international trade significantly affects prices and wages." Maybe it is obvious and it is actually included in the meaning (sometimes I was not sure the difference between assumption and inclusion), but if so I can see why A is correct because it connects the premise to the idea in conclusion.

By the way is there any tendency or characteristics between sufficient assumption and necessary assumption?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

The first sentence here isn't really doing much by way of logical purpose. It sets up the people who the person making the argument disagrees with. Think about it—does some economists viewing their home countries as immune to outside influence HELP the conclusion that they need to look beyond their home countries? No, if anything, it's the opposing idea that the person making the argument is fighting against!

As for your other question—I'm not sure what you mean but there are some pretty critical differences between necessary and assumption questions that are important to learn. I would definitely spend the time studying up on the differences using the Logical Reasoning Strategy Guide.

[rachellewrx]

I did get this one wrong during practice. But after examining the stimulus and the answer choices, I somewhat figure it out.

So the conclusion in the stimulus says looking beyond national border is necessary if nation's economies are to prosper. But a nation's economic prosperity is nowhere mentioned in the premises. So the missing link must involve the hot phrase" nation's economies are to prosper" or something like that. Glancing over the answer choices, only A mentions it, LUCKILY.

This is a strategy I'd use if I'm under time pressure during the test. But I think it might not be error-proof, especially if LSAC decided to make the question harder by giving us five answer choices which all begin with " a nation's economy cannot prosper unless".

[hayleychen12]

After all the posts above, I want to ask a rather general question about Sufficient Assumption type:

Normally we see sufficient assumption questions that require us to bridge an gap between the premises and the conclusion.

However, this question actually resemble the Principle Questions(support) in which the right answer is normally a general statement that justifies the conclusion.

Am I being paranoid??

Any help!!