Q22 - Economists: Some people argue

[ccalice21]

I did not see how choice (C) makes the conclusion more properly drawn.

Can anyone explain to me?

I chose (E).

Thank you in advance!!

[bbirdwell]

This is a tough question! First, the analytical explanation, then the jedi move.

For one thing, the "what some people say" part of it is very distracting, and if we're trying to just think our way through the problem, this can add difficulty. Gotta hand it to the test writers for doing their job well on one like this.

Here's how the reasoning looks to me:
some people: increase in small countries --> increased barriers (tariffs) harm world trade.

fact:
small countries --> ~think of selves as self-sufficient

conclusion:
NOT TRUE that [increase in small countries --> increase in barriers]

Here, as our conclusion is simply a refutation of what "some people" say, we don't have to consider what they say. All we need to do is focus on the evidence and the conclusion, and provide the link that would make the conclusion valid.

So the question to consider, before we go to the choices, is this:
How do we get from
[small countries --> ~think of selves as self-sufficient]

to NOT TRUE that [more small --> more barriers]

I see that both of these statements essentially describe small countries. One way to "map out" the reasoning would be like this:
A --> ~B
therefore
A --> C

A = small countries
B = think of self as self-sufficient
C = increased barrier

So we KNOW that A --> ~B. That's it -- the only fact presented.

And we want to have NOT [A --> C]. What's the DEFINITE way to make this true?

You got it: A -->~C! Notice that if A --> ~C, it is definitely not true that A-->C. Got it so far?

Now, the LSAT wouldn't be the LSAT if it just spelled that out in the correct answer. We have to take advantage of the one definite fact -- that A --> ~B. So to go rom there to A --> ~C, what do we need?

Yep: ~B --> ~C. Adding our existing fact to this one, we'd combine them to have this:
A--> ~B --> ~C, or simply A --> ~C. And that's what we want.

Make sense so far?

So you can actually THINK about it in terms of A, B, and C if that's easy, or not. I think it's helpful to SEE it that way, and aim to just do it naturally when you've practiced some more.

Translating our As and Bs above so that we can nail the right answer, we know that we need ~B --> C.

This is: [NOT think of self as self-sufficient --> NOT increased barriers]

Our correct answer will be either this or its contrapositive, if the problem is particularly nasty:
Increased barriers --> think of self as self-sufficient.

(C) says this.

The jedi move on sufficient assumption questions that involve conditional logic is this: if the premise contains a concept or idea NOT mentioned in the conclusion (or vice versa), the correct answer MUST include that concept.

What idea does our evidence depend on that our conclusion doesn't mention at all? The part about what countries think about themselves!

So we should eliminate all answers that do not contain the idea of a country's view of itself, because that idea is the linchpin that bridges the fact and the conclusion.

How many choices mention that?

Exactly.

Now, it may take time to start seeing things this way. I imagine that if you sit down for a couple of afternoons and dig through some LSAT materials looking at only questions like this, you'll begin to see. I don't mean just do a bunch of them and check your answers. I mean study them. Apply this method both in performance and in review, and study the structures and the answer choices. If notating in A,B,C is difficult for you, try it. Experiment. See what happens.

[ccalice21]

Thanks a lot for the explanation and advice!

It does look much clearer when you can see things in A, B, C...

[jamiejames]

This is a tough question! First, the analytical explanation, then the jedi move.

For one thing, the "what some people say" part of it is very distracting, and if we're trying to just think our way through the problem, this can add difficulty. Gotta hand it to the test writers for doing their job well on one like this.

Here's how the reasoning looks to me:
some people: increase in small countries --> increased barriers (tariffs) harm world trade.

fact:
small countries --> ~think of selves as self-sufficient

conclusion:
NOT TRUE that [increase in small countries --> increase in barriers]

Here, as our conclusion is simply a refutation of what "some people" say, we don't have to consider what they say. All we need to do is focus on the evidence and the conclusion, and provide the link that would make the conclusion valid.

So the question to consider, before we go to the choices, is this:
How do we get from
[small countries --> ~think of selves as self-sufficient]

to NOT TRUE that [more small --> more barriers]

I see that both of these statements essentially describe small countries. One way to "map out" the reasoning would be like this:
A --> ~B
therefore
A --> C

A = small countries
B = think of self as self-sufficient
C = increased barrier

So we KNOW that A --> ~B. That's it -- the only fact presented.

And we want to have NOT [A --> C]. What's the DEFINITE way to make this true?

You got it: A -->~C! Notice that if A --> ~C, it is definitely not true that A-->C. Got it so far?

Now, the LSAT wouldn't be the LSAT if it just spelled that out in the correct answer. We have to take advantage of the one definite fact -- that A --> ~B. So to go rom there to A --> ~C, what do we need?

Yep: ~B --> ~C. Adding our existing fact to this one, we'd combine them to have this:
A--> ~B --> ~C, or simply A --> ~C. And that's what we want.

Make sense so far?

So you can actually THINK about it in terms of A, B, and C if that's easy, or not. I think it's helpful to SEE it that way, and aim to just do it naturally when you've practiced some more.

Translating our As and Bs above so that we can nail the right answer, we know that we need ~B --> C.

This is: [NOT think of self as self-sufficient --> NOT increased barriers]

Our correct answer will be either this or its contrapositive, if the problem is particularly nasty:
Increased barriers --> think of self as self-sufficient.

(C) says this.

The jedi move on sufficient assumption questions that involve conditional logic is this: if the premise contains a concept or idea NOT mentioned in the conclusion (or vice versa), the correct answer MUST include that concept.

What idea does our evidence depend on that our conclusion doesn't mention at all? The part about what countries think about themselves!

So we should eliminate all answers that do not contain the idea of a country's view of itself, because that idea is the linchpin that bridges the fact and the conclusion.

How many choices mention that?

Exactly.

Now, it may take time to start seeing things this way. I imagine that if you sit down for a couple of afternoons and dig through some LSAT materials looking at only questions like this, you'll begin to see. I don't mean just do a bunch of them and check your answers. I mean study them. Apply this method both in performance and in review, and study the structures and the answer choices. If notating in A,B,C is difficult for you, try it. Experiment. See what happens.

I began noticing this Jedi trick a couple of months ago, and it allows me in 90% of the questions to get down to two answer choices that contain the term not in the prem/conc, then even there, it's usually a choice between the correct answer, and for example, a mistaken reversal, so this trick is probably one of the most useful I've learned because it allows for not having to do the logic on every answer

[shodges]

I have a question about B.

Is B wrong because it addresses what would strengthen or weaken the world economy, which is included in the premise, but does NOT address barriers to free trade (a crucial part of the conclusion)?

I feel like it was put in there as a wrong answer because, while it does address the the critics' conclusion in the premises, it ultimately does not bridge the gap. The assumption has to deal with connecting self-sufficiency and free trade barriers.

[rinagoldfield]

Is B wrong because it addresses what would strengthen or weaken the world economy, which is included in the premise, but does NOT address barriers to free trade (a crucial part of the conclusion)?

You’ve got just the right idea, Shodges. A sufficient assumption fully stitches the premise to the conclusion, and our conclusion here has nothing to do with the world economy.

I’d even say that the world economy isn’t part of the premise.

The conclusion of the argument states "dividing large countries into smaller ones doesn’t increase barriers to free trade."

Why?

Because "small countries do not think of themselves as economically serf sufficient."

That’s it! That's the whole core. All that stuff about "some people" and "world economy" is background fluff meant to distract us from the true argument core.