PoliticianX vs Politician Y, possible LR question and answer Forum

[nmillette]

On my way to work this morning, I heard this argument between two politicians during a news report on the radio and immediately identified that the argument was flawed, the argument went like so:

Politician X: Although company XYZ reported a Net Loss of over 700 million for a second consecutive year, the company is not insolvent.

Politician Y: I do not understand how Politician X can continue to deny that Company XYZ is not insolvent when it does not have have enough cash to finance its operating expenses and continues to report a Net Loss.

Politician X: It is true that the company has a cash shortage situation however, the company is not insolvent as it has a lot of other assets.

After hearing the argument, I was wondering if this argument would make a better "point of issue question" with the correct answer being both parties disagree as to whether Company XYZ is insolvent

OR

An "identify the flaw question" with the correct answer being uncertain use of the term "Insolvent"

I apologize in advance, however I am in full June LSAT prep mode so I use every and any situation as a means of drilling/studying for the June exam, even if that means making up my own LSAT worthy questions and answers while sitting in a taxi on the way to work.

[Skill Game]

To me, it wouldn't make a good point of issue question because the answer is obvious. One says it's insolvent. The other says it's not. If it were this type of question, the answer would probably have to be slightly more nuanced than this. And if it were a flaw question, it seems like it would require more explication by the speakers, because as it is now, you would need a more advanced understanding of economics/business in order to be able to assess it.

[Daily_Double]

The correct answer would be, if a country has a cash shortage but not a dearth of assets, can that country be insolvent.