LSAT 142 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 142 - Section 4 - Question 20

December 2014

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:11

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT142 S4 Q20	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 7% 160 B 3% 157 C 21% 159 D 60% 167 E 9% 160	154 161 168	+Hardest	147.564 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: Global recessions can never be prevented, for they could be prevented only if they were predictable. Yet economists, using the best techniques at their disposal, consistently fail to accurately predict global recessions.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that global recessions can never be prevented. This is based on the following:

In order to prevent global recessions, it must be the case that those recessions are predictable.

Economist using the best techniques available consistently fail to predict global recessions.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the fact economists have not yet been able to predict global recessions implies that such recession are unpredictable. This overlooks the possibility that the recessions might be predictable, just not with the “best techniques at [the economists’] disposal.” Perhaps better techniques will be developed in the future that will predict recessions. More generally, the assumption is that past failures to predict show that prediction is impossible.

presupposes in a premise the conclusion that it purports to establish

(A) describes circular reasoning. But the author’s conclusion is not assumed to be true in the premises. The conclusion is that recessions can never be prevented; this claim isn’t repeated in the premises.

fails to establish that economists claim to be able to accurately predict global recessions

The author didn’t need to establish this, because no part of the argument assumed that any economists claimed the ability to predict recessions.

treats the predictability of an event, which is required for the event to be preventable, as a characteristic that assures its prevention

The author didn’t argue that, because the necessary condition for preventability is met (predictability), that the thing (predictability) is sufficient for preventing recessions. Rather, the author assumes that the necessary condition for preventing recessions has not been met.

fails to address the possibility that the techniques available to economists for the prediction of global recessions will significantly improve

This possibility, if true, would show why economists might be able to predict recessions accurately in the future, even if they haven’t been able to so far using the best available techniques. (D) points out that past failures to predict do not imply that prediction is impossible.

implicitly bases an inference that something will not occur solely on the information that its occurrence is not predictable

The author doesn’t present any “information” that recessions are “not predictable.” He assumes they aren’t predictable, but this isn’t what the premises actually establish. Also, the conclusion is not that recessions won’t occur; it’s that they can’t be prevented.

LSAT 142 – Section 4 – Question 20

LSAT 142 - Section 4 - Question 20

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel