Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTime Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future)

Energy Policy Analyst: Historically, over the last four decades, sudden and severe spikes in the price of imported petroleum have caused prolonged economic downturns in our country by drastically increasing manufacturing and transportation costs. Next quarter, global commodities markets are projected to experience an unprecedented 40 percent surge in petroleum prices due to regional export restrictions. Therefore, policymakers must urgently prepare for an imminent and severe national economic downturn.

Which of the following accurately describe a reasoning flaw in the analyst's argument? Select all that apply.

  1. It takes for granted that the structural economic vulnerabilities present during previous decades persist unaltered into the present day.Answer
  2. B
    It relies on shifting the definition of a key economic term between the historical evidence provided and the future projection.
  3. It projects a historically established causal mechanism into the future without considering whether relevant intervening circumstances have shifted.Answer
  4. D
    It assumes that because a specific event caused most economic downturns in the past, it will inevitably be the sole cause of any future downturn.
  5. E
    It confuses a subsidiary premise regarding commodity market projections with the ultimate conclusion of the argument.

Answer

The correct options are the one stating it assumes structural economic vulnerabilities persist unaltered, and the one stating it projects a historical causal mechanism into the future without considering shifted circumstances.
The correct choices accurately target the argument's vulnerability: it relies on historical evidence (the last four decades) to guarantee a future event. To do this, it must assume that the relevant background conditions (e.g., the economy's reliance on oil, alternative energy availability, manufacturing processes) have not changed. Both correct descriptions highlight this unwarranted temporal leap from past causal mechanisms to future outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises of the argument.
Premise 1: Past petroleum price spikes caused economic downturns. Premise 2: A 40% price spike is projected for next quarter.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step to evaluating its logical validity.
2
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Policymakers must prepare for an imminent economic downturn.
The conclusion represents the claim that the author believes is supported by the premises.
3
Analyze the gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument relies on the assumption that what happened in the past (petroleum spikes causing downturns) will necessarily happen in the future.
Identifying the unstated assumptions reveals the logical flaws in the reasoning.
4
Categorize the flaw based on the identified gap.
The gap is a 'Time Shift Flaw'. The author assumes that static conditions have persisted over the last four decades and that historical trends will perfectly extrapolate into the future.
Matching the gap to known LSAT flaw archetypes helps in selecting the accurately phrased answer choices.
5
Evaluate the options against the identified flaw.
Two options correctly describe this temporal assumption using different abstract language. The others describe flaws (equivocation, quantifier overreach, structural confusion) not present in the stimulus.
Because this is a multiple-selection question, all valid descriptions of the core flaw must be identified.

Key Concept

Time Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future) occur when an argument assumes that historical conditions, relationships, or trends will necessarily continue unchanged into the present or future.
Rate this question

Topics

Time Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future)

More questions from this topic