Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumCircular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

Macroeconomist: A persistent national trade deficit is invariably detrimental to a country's overall economic well-being. This is undeniable, because whenever a nation continues to purchase more goods from abroad than it sells internationally over a prolonged period, the foundational strength of its domestic financial system is being compromised.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the macroeconomist's reasoning?

  1. The argument offers as its sole premise a claim that merely paraphrases the conclusion it attempts to establish.Answer
  2. B
    It infers that because trade imbalances and economic decline occur simultaneously, the former must necessarily cause the latter.
  3. C
    It assumes that a condition sufficient to compromise a domestic financial system is also necessary for that system to be compromised.
  4. D
    It mistakes contextual information regarding international trade practices for a structural premise that logically supports its main claim.
  5. E
    It uses a key term regarding international commerce in two distinct and incompatible senses throughout the course of the argument.

Answer

The option stating that the argument offers as its sole premise a claim that merely paraphrases the conclusion it attempts to establish.
The argument concludes that a persistent trade deficit harms an economy. To support this, it defines a persistent trade deficit (buying more than selling for a prolonged period) and defines harming the economy (compromising the foundational strength of the financial system), presenting this restatement as if it were independent proof. An argument that uses its own conclusion, disguised in different words, as its sole evidence commits circular reasoning.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is the first sentence: 'A persistent national trade deficit is invariably detrimental to a country's overall economic well-being.'
To evaluate reasoning flaws, we must first isolate the core claim the author is attempting to prove.
2
Identify the premise(s) provided to support the conclusion.
The premise is the second sentence: '...whenever a nation continues to purchase more goods from abroad than it sells internationally over a prolonged period, the foundational strength of its domestic financial system is being compromised.'
Analyzing the evidence reveals how the author attempts to build logical support for the conclusion.
3
Compare the meaning of the premise to the meaning of the conclusion.
The premise translates exactly to the conclusion. 'Purchase more goods from abroad than it sells internationally over a prolonged period' is the definition of a 'persistent national trade deficit'. 'Foundational strength... is being compromised' is synonymous with 'detrimental to... economic well-being'.
Recognizing structural similarities or disparities between premises and conclusions is the key to identifying circular logic.
4
Determine the logical flaw based on this relationship.
Because the premise is logically identical to the conclusion, the author provides no independent evidence. This is Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question).
Matching the observed structure to known LSAT flaws identifies the correct answer.

Key Concept

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Rate this question

Topics

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

More questions from this topic