PT30, S2, Q15

Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:57 am

PT30, S2, Q15

Postby 179orBust » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:14 am

Got the correct answer, but continue to have a vague understanding of this question. Mainly got this answer by POE but it was a huge time sucker.
Any help simplifying the question would be appreciated. TIA

Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 2:13 pm

Re: PT30, S2, Q15

Postby js1663 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:29 am

In this question, there are a few facts:

Banks lent less during this last economic downturn contributing to the downturn
Just before the economic downturn, regulations were tightened

The arguments conclusion is that if regulations were loosened banks would lend more

If you connect the points the argument is saying that just before the downturn occured regulations were tightened, therefore tighter regulations caused the downturn and if we loosen regulations we will have the opposite effect.

A is the right answer here because the argument is assuming that regulation caused the decreased lending (which contributed to the downturn) and nothing else. Therefore, when it says that one of the other possible reasons for lending did NOT happen, that's correct, they are assuming that. The only way we know their conclusion to be correct is if there is a causation; if there are other factors in play you can't assume the causation they base their argument about between lending and regulatory standards.

User avatar
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: PT30, S2, Q15

Postby PeanutsNJam » Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:18 am

Yeah JS is right but here's the simplified version.


Premise Economy bad. Part of this is because banks lent less money.

Premise Before economy bad, there were rules that made banks lend less money.

Conclusion If we don't have rules, banks will lend more money.

This is an assumption question, so we're looking for an answer choice that bridges the gap between the premise and conclusion. Because this argument is making some serious leaps of logic here. In fact, these leaps are so large, the stimulus doesn't make much sense.

Answer choices:

a.) The bad economy did NOT reduce the money banks had available to lend out
b.) The bad economic did NOT cause the rules
c.) There's a good reason for rules
d.) Bad economies never happen at the same time as banks lending less money
e.) Changing rules wouldn't have an effect on the bad economy

We're looking for something that enables the conclusion.

You can also try the thing where you reverse an answer choice and see if it invalidates the argument.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests