Economist: A country’s rapid emergence from an economic recession

No, the reverse is given to us.

We are given in the argument that A needs B.
So "if B doesn't happen, A doesn't happen."
This is given to us.

Option (A) says "if A doesn't happen, B doesn't happen." This is the reverse of what is given to us.
It is not the assumption. The assumption will link D to the rest.

This is an LSAT problem and you won't see anything such in GMAT.

To be very specific, this is a sufficient assumption question "enables the economist’s conclusion to be properly drawn". I am yet to see one such sufficient assumption question in Official Guide/other official sources in the last couple of years. The last one (and the only one till date) appeared in OG-12, but it was dropped in the subsequent OGs'.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/although-par ... 16043.html

Cheers !

This is an assumption question, so let's brainstorm gaps in the argument before jumping into the options

1ºPremise: country’s rapid emergence from an economic recession -> new investment
2ºPremise: people’s confidence in policies ->prerequisite new investments
Conclusion: collective goals over individuals ->can't emerge quickly from a recession

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the economist’s conclusion to be properly drawn?The flow of this argument is: if a country wants to quickly emerge from a recession so you need people's confidence in policies so the country has new investments. Now, the conclusion is: collective goals over individuals means no quick emrgence from a recession so it means not confidence in policies and no new investments. The gap is: how collective/individuals goals are connected to new invesments? through confidence. And how is confidence related to collective/individuals goals? This is the gap. We need to connect these collective/individuals goals with people's confidence. The assumption should be that collective goals over individual leads to poor people's confidence in polices. Let's jump now into the options


(A) No new investment occurs in any country that does not emerge quickly from an economic recession.

This answer is trying to confuse you with sufficient and necessary conditions. As stated in the argument, new investment is necessary to emerge quickly from a recession but it is not sufficient (this means that even though you have new investment you could have no quick emergence from a recession). So it is possible to have new investment in a country which doesn't quickly emerge from a recession. Incorrect

(B) Recessions in countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals tend not to affect the country’s people’s support for their government’s policies.

Definitely not correct. In our reflection, we saw that collective over individual goals are linked to poor people's confidence. Incorrect

(C) If the people in a country that puts individuals’ goals first are willing to make new investments in their country’s economy, their country will emerge quickly from an economic recession.

individual goals first means good people's confidence in policies and therefore willing to make new investments. So the first part of the sentence is good. Then, it says that if that's the case then the country will emerge, which is also in line with what we thought. But hold on a moment. will the country emerge quicky from a recession if new investments are made for sure? Again new investments are a necessary condition, so we could have that we have new investments and no quickly emergence. Incorrect

(D) People in countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals lack confidence in the economic policies of their countries.

This is definitely correct. Similar to C) but without making the error of sufficient/necessary conditions. Correct

(E) A country’s economic policies are the most significant factor determining whether that country’s economy will experience a recession.

Most significant factor? There may be other factors. Incorrect

OPTION D

Hi VeritasKarishma

So A) is wrong because is already stated in the argument, right?

found this to be about a 650 level. What is the official level of this question?

I got D by understanding reasoning of question leading to argument.

some people may be confused to choose A; however, you can easily negate since you can have "some" investment and still not come out of a recession, so that assumption is not necessary.

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Both “requires” and “precondition” indicate a necessary condition. So the given facts are 1) rapid emergence from recession —> substantial new investment, and 2) new investment —> people have confidence in economic policies of their country. These two statements could properly be linked together as 1+2) rapid emergence from recession —> substantial new investment —> people have confidence in economic policies of their country.

In other words, in order to emerge rapidly from a recession, people must have confidence in the economic policies of their country. Why? Well, because if they don’t have confidence then there won’t be new investment, and without new investment there won’t be rapid emergence from the recession.

The conclusion says, “Countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals cannot emerge quickly from a recession.” We’re asked to find an answer that “enables the economist’s conclusion to be properly drawn.” This means, “Find a sufficient assumption,” or, “Prove the argument’s conclusion to be correct.” There are really only a couple ways to do this. The problem with the argument is that “countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals” is a totally new concept that wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the argument. So the only way this argument can possibly be logically sound is if we add a new premise that links that concept to the other concepts in the argument. I see two ways to prove the argument:

1) “People lack confidence in the economic policies of their country in countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals.” Or the contrapositive of that statement: “If the people have confidence in the economic policies of their country, then the country does not put collective goals before individuals’ goals.” One of those is probably going to be the right answer.

But we could also just ignore the “confidence” premise entirely and use only the first premise to prove the conclusion. 2) “Countries that put collective goals before individual goals never have new investment,” or the contrapositive of that statement, “Any country which has new investment does not put collective goals before individual goals.”

One of those four statements (well, two statements, really, with two contrapositives) will be the correct answer. There is simply no other way to prove the argument correct from the given facts.

A) Nah. This doesn’t link in the thing about collective goals vs. individual goals, so there’s no way this bridges the gap.

B) This has lots of the right words, but they’re jumbled together in a way that just doesn’t do what we need them to do. The best way to avoid this answer is to know exactly what you’re looking for before you look at the answer choices. Trying to figure out what’s wrong with this answer choice really isn’t the right way to go about it. It’s wrong because it’s not exactly what we need, and that’s good enough to eliminate it on a Sufficient Assumption question.

C) This provides a sufficient condition for emerging from a recession, and since it’s a sufficient condition for success, it could only ever be used to prove that a country will emerge quickly. Our desired conclusion is “won’t emerge quickly” and this premise could never get us there.

D) Yes, this exactly matches one of our predictions. If this answer is true, then the conclusion of the argument must also be true. That’s what we needed.

E) Nothing here about collective vs. individual goals, so we don’t have to even think about it.

Our answer is D, because it’s exactly what we predicted. On Sufficient Assumption questions, we can frequently predict the correct answer with certainty

Economist: A country’s rapid emergence from an economic recession requires substantial new investment in that country’s economy. Since people’s confidence in the economic policies of their country is a precondition for any new investment, countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals cannot emerge quickly from an economic recession.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the economist’s conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) No new investment occurs in any country that does not emerge quickly from an economic recession. - WRONG. Reverse case that is not necessarily true. Additionally, substantial investment is required. We aren't sure whether that new investment was substantial or not.
(B) Recessions in countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals tend not to affect the country’s people’s support for their government’s policies. - WRONG. Irrelevant. We are looking for whether country can't emerge quickly out of a recession.
(C) If the people in a country that puts individuals’ goals first are willing to make new investments in their country’s economy, their country will emerge quickly from an economic recession. - WRONG. Smartly, this has been reversed to trap people. It takes a positive aspect and tries to prove that wherein we need to the negative side i.e. why a country can't quickly emerge from a recession. This is not necessarily true.
(D) People in countries that put collective goals before individuals’ goals lack confidence in the economic policies of their countries. - CORRECT. Touches the aspect perfectly as suggested in the highlighted text.
(E) A country’s economic policies are the most significant factor determining whether that country’s economy will experience a recession. - WRONG. Irrelevant and out of scope.

Answer D.