Q4 - Columnist: Analysts argue that as

[mcarmody]

Okay I'm confused. I see why C is right but I initially chose B because the argument does bring up the fact that the analysts "would stand to gain if this were true" which I thought was equivalent to presenting it for self-serving reasons...and then he attempts to reach an alternative conclusion.

I'm still not quite sure why one outweighs the other.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great question.

The question stem only asks, "which of these did the columnist do?" so anything accurate should be right.

(B) is inaccurate because the Columnist didn't attempt to undermine the analysts' argument via attacking their motives. The Columnist weakens the analysts' argument with economic premises. The last sentence of the stimulus is a very mathematical, analytical way of undermining the analysts' argument.

We know the Columnist is disagreeing with the analysts, and if we were to say "Why?", we would supply the last sentence, not the idea that the analysts stand to gain from their prediction being true.

If (B) just said:
(B) [the columnist] suggests that the analysts present their argument for self-serving reasons

we'd be closer to something accurate. But let's dig a little deeper there ...

LSAT likes to protect the rights of a person to make a dispassionate (impartial) argument, even if that person does indeed have a personal stake in the argument.

On earlier LSATs, you'll frequently see a recurring flaw in which an author attempts to undermine someone else's argument by saying, "Well, he would stand to gain if that were true."

A wealthy CEO may argue that the economy would prosper if we cut the highest tax bracket, on the basis that doing so would encourage the beneficiaries of that tax break to re-invest the money into their businesses, ultimately creating more jobs and more value for the overall economy.

LSAT won't let me invalidate that argument by saying that the CEO shouldn't be listened to -- after all, she's just making that argument because she would owe less tax if such a policy went into effect.

Similarly, I'm a Miami Heat fan. I could make an argument for why the Heat are likely to win the championship this year. I would stand to gain much happiness if that prediction came true, but that's doesn't mean my argument wasn't based on objective data. That doesn't mean I presented my argument for self-serving reasons.

The same could be said for Q4 -- these analysts could be making an argument about financial trends they believe will lead to a certain outcome. When our Columnist points out that "analysts would stand to gain if this were true", there doesn't have to be anything accusatory about that idea. It can just be a fact that analysts make money off the stock market.

Clearly, LSAT wanted many students to interpret a more accusatory tone, because (B) is certainly the most tempting trap answer here.

But from the text we have, we can't get that the columnist is actually accusing the analysts of concocting a bogus argument for self-serving reasons.

We would need some better connective tissue between "they'd stand to gain" and "they are being overly optimistic".

If the columnist had said "Analysts would stand to gain if this were true, which is why they are being overly optimistic", then we would have better support for (B).

Hope this helps.

[griffin.811]

What's the deal with A here? I know the passage says "Thus, these analysts conclude more monwy will flow into the stock market" but this looks like an intermediate conclusion, supporting the fact that their will be continued gains in stock prices. This idea of new money flowing into the stock market seems to be undermined by the columnists statement that the money of boomers will flow to other investments.

I think one thing that helps eliminate this though is that A says "questions the truth of its premises, and not a premise, or simply "premise". The way its written lends to an all or nothing interpretation.

Since intermediate conclusions are premises, couldn't there be a case for A?

C is def a more clear answer, but just curious about A.

[sumukh09]

What's the deal with A here? I know the passage says "Thus, these analysts conclude more monwy will flow into the stock market" but this looks like an intermediate conclusion, supporting the fact that their will be continued gains in stock prices. This idea of new money flowing into the stock market seems to be undermined by the columnists statement that the money of boomers will flow to other investments.

I think one thing that helps eliminate this though is that A says "questions the truth of its premises, and not a premise, or simply "premise". The way its written lends to an all or nothing interpretation.

Since intermediate conclusions are premises, couldn't there be a case for A?

C is def a more clear answer, but just curious about A.

Hey Griffin,

I would argue A is incorrect because the truth of the premises are not being questioned in this argument. All the premises are taken to be true, in fact, it is these premises - collectively - that enables the columnist to arrive at his conclusion. The "if this were true" part is only referring to possibility that what the analysts predict takes place. It could very well take place, but the columnists entire argument is to challenge the likelihood of that event taking place, ie) more money flowing into stock markets. So it is not the case that any of the premises are false, but rather using these "true" premises to arrive at an alternative conclusion. I think what might have caused confusion is the "if this were true" part, but the columnist is not implying that it is false that more money will flow into the stock market. He's only suggesting that it is very unlikely, given the premise offered by the columnist, that money will flow into stocks instead of investments. Hope this helps

[ohthatpatrick]

Interesting thoughts about (A) from both of the last two posters.

I'm not sure that "questioning the truth" is a bad match for "thinking something will likely be otherwise".

If I'm impugning the validity of someone's prediction, by suggesting an alternative prediction is more likely, is it fair to say I'm "questioning the truth" of the prediction? I think so.

But, as Griffin noticed, we have a ROCK SOLID dealbreaker in (A) with the plural 'premises'. Griffin was only saying that the columnist disagreed with the claim "more money will flow into the stock market", and the real question was
1. can we call that claim an intermediate conclusion?
2. if so, can we call it a premise in the answer choice?

For #1, I think you should rest easy knowing that LSAT will not leave us with such gray area there. I do not consider it an intermediate conclusion, because I think "these analysts conclude" a 2-part idea.

If I conclude that "tomorrow it will rain, getting the ground wet", we don't have to call the first half an intermediate conclusion and the second half the main conclusion. We can just think that my conclusion consists of a two-part thought.

Whenever there's a chain of causality, I don't think the test writers ever ask us to interpret each step along the way as an intermediate conclusion.

If they want us to recognize that another "reasoning step" is being made, they offer us keywords. So we would see something like "more money would flow into the stock market, and, hence, stock prices would continue to rise".

For #2, I don't think I've ever seen them refer to a genuine intermediate conclusion as a premise. They'll often nondescriptly refer to an IC as "an idea, supported by another idea, that lends support to something else", but I don't think they'll coyly call it a 'premise' in the narrow sense of how it supports the main conclusion.

Okay, I think we've nerded this one out sufficiently.