74 LR Two Question 15
- « 74 LR Two Question 14
- 2785 of 3815
- 74 LR Two Question 16 »
Comments
So I originally circled C right away. but then I got to E and said wait a minute! The others are arguing that interest rates changes are needed to stimulate the economy.
I believe the economy is growing already. So I have concluded that if you stimulate it that you will screw up the economy. Isn't that my flaw.
C is a flaw. However, this flaw has no bearing on the argument at hand. It only has bearing if the others were arguing that there are other reasons to stimulate the economy.
So what if there are other reasons to lower interest rates. What does that have to do with anything.
I guess you could say his argument is "questionable" based on C simply in that his reasoning also has this other flaw.
What did I do wrong here? E is a response to the argument in the text where it says. "However, no such stimulation is needed"
C is a flaw in the text to "So, currently there is no reason..."
The Economist is reasoning twice! The second reasoning is based on the first flaw. If the economist hadn't made the first flaw then the second might not have happened.
The word "unsustainable" does not throw out E either because the economist as already specified a direction.
I think I would prevail in a challenge to this question.
The conclusion of the argument is that there is no reason to lower interest rates. That necessarily involves the assumption that stimulation is the only reason for lowering rates.
(E) is wrong in large part because the argument did not conclude that a further reduction of interest rates would lead to unsustainable growth. It cannot be the answer if it's not even talking accurately about the argument in question!
I had a similar issue with this question in that the first sentence states that "Many of my colleagues are arguing that interest rates should be further lowered in order to stimulate economic growth." Wouldn't this phrasing prove that whether or not the Economist is discussing stimulation as the Only Reason or not is irrelevant since his colleagues are arguing about that specific reason. The colleagues are saying "this should be done because of this reason" and the Economist is responding with "no, if this is the reasoning you are using, we already acheived economic growth so therefore your reasoning is irrelevant, hence 'No Reason' provided by the colleagues in support of their push for lowering the interest rates.
I agree that E may be strange due to the usage of their terminology of "unsustainable" which isn't discussed in the discussion of what would happen should we continue to stimulate the economy if we already have a sustainable growth rate, but I feel that answer C is also pulling at a straw that is irrelevant to the argument for the first sentence doesn't bring about any other reasoning for the action to begin with, just that it stimulates economic growth.
The argument is:
1. The economy is growing at a sustainable rate.
∴ There is no reason to lower interest rates. [emphasis added]
This is poor reasoning, because it assumes that if the economy is growing sustainably, then there's no other factor that matters in determining whether we ought to lower interest rates.
Hope that helps!