Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardFlaw in the Reasoning

Macroeconomist: A country's overall economic resilience is determined by the financial behavior of its institutions. During the recent fiscal quarter, every single commercial bank operating within the nation implemented highly conservative lending practices, successfully minimizing their individual institutional risk. Because every individual bank in the system has achieved this secure posture, the national banking system as a whole is now completely insulated from systemic financial crises.

The reasoning in the macroeconomist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument does which of the following?

  1. A
    takes for granted that a condition sufficient to minimize risk for an individual bank is also necessary to insulate the entire banking system
  2. B
    equivocates with respect to the concept of risk, confusing the risk of poor lending practices with the risk of general economic decline
  3. infers that a property possessed by each individual entity within a system must necessarily be a property of the system as a wholeAnswer
  4. D
    fails to distinguish between the absolute number of banks implementing conservative practices and the proportion of the nation's wealth they control
  5. E
    relies on a causal inference about the effects of conservative lending that is based on data from an insufficiently long time period

Answer

The correct answer identifies that the argument infers that a property possessed by each individual entity within a system must necessarily be a property of the system as a whole.
The correct answer accurately describes the Fallacy of Composition committed in the stimulus. The argument takes a characteristic of the individual parts—that each bank has minimized its own risk—and inappropriately concludes that the entire banking system shares this exact same characteristic (immunity to crisis). It ignores the possibility that the collective actions of individual entities can create systemic issues that don't exist at the individual level.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the national banking system as a whole is now completely insulated from systemic financial crises.
This sets the target for what the premises must prove. The conclusion is a sweeping claim about the entire 'national banking system as a whole'.
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
The core premise is that 'every single commercial bank' has minimized its 'individual institutional risk'.
Understanding the evidence highlights the specific transition the author is making from evidence to conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
The author assumes that what is true of the parts (individual banks being secure) must automatically be true of the whole (the entire banking system).
This is a classic structural gap. Complex systems often possess dynamics that differ from their isolated components (e.g., if all banks conservatively stop lending at once, it could trigger the very systemic crisis they seek to avoid).
4
Match the identified logical gap to the abstract descriptions in the options.
The correct option perfectly describes the Fallacy of Composition, noting the leap from 'each individual entity' to 'the system as a whole'.
LSAT Flaw questions require abstractly identifying the exact nature of the reasoning error.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Composition and Division (Part to Whole)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic