Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last

Question

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last year you predicted that this country’s economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies were not changed. Instead, economic growth is even stronger this year.

Economist: There was nothing at all bumbling about my warning. Indeed, it convinced the country’s leaders to change economic policies, which is what prevented a recession.

The economist responds to the critic by

(A) indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist’s prediction was conditioned did not obtain

(B) distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned out to be incorrect

(C) attempting to show that the critic’s statements are mutually inconsistent

(D) offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by the critic

(E) offering evidence against one of the critic’s factual premises

Pari28 · Answer

Would like to see an official explanation

Hea234ven · Answer

how can it be A? Any explanation pls??

PTD1995 · Answer

Hea234ven

So, the economist predicted that IF economic policies were not changed, the country would go into a recession. The critic is making fun of him because the country did not go into a recession.

But wait a minute--the economist was only saying this would happen if policies weren't changed. Wouldn't it be helpful to know whether the government changed the policies before we decide whether his prediction was correct?

That's basically what the economist's response is getting at. He's saying, "Listen fool, the policies were changed, so it makes sense that there was no recession. I was only saying that would happen if things stayed the same."

And answer (A) describes this nicely. The economist's prediction was about what would happen if a certain state of affairs -- namely, the policies staying the same -- took place. But that state of affairs did not take place (or "obtain"), which is why the predicted results didn't happen.

(B) is out because it's not a question of waiting for the prediction to come true; the policies were changed, so it's not even relevant.

(C) is incorrect because the economist is not saying the critic's statements are inconsistent with each other. He's just saying they're wrong.

(D) is out because, no counterexample.

(E) is out because there's no competing factual evidence.

Does that answer your question?

Rashed12 · Answer

Would anyone help me to get explanation in detail why E is incorrect?

dvnielng · Answer

(A) indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist’s prediction was conditioned did not obtain

Is this even english, or a poorly transcribed sentence? 'did not obtain'

mayankdgmat · Answer

(A) indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist’s prediction was conditioned did not obtain

This is tough to decode, it basically says that economist prediction was based on if no policy change happens recession will bound to come, but that situation didn't happen because policy change happened.

(B) distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned out to be incorrect

two predictions were not made.

(C) attempting to show that the critic’s statements are mutually inconsistent

Inconsistent means contradicting, but that’s not the case. His reasoning may not be correct. But his own statement doesn’t have any two opposing sentence.
(D) offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by the critic

General claim is what makes this answer a weak choice and counterexample was not given.

(E) offering evidence against one of the critic’s factual premises

There is no evidence present, he just says that policy changed but didn't give any evidence.

research11 · Answer

But for E, doesn’t the fact that policies were changed act as an evidence in itself? He evidenced that policies were changed

Posted from my mobile device

mayankdgmat · Answer

That is economist assertion not an evidence presented by him. If I say I have wrote above question for LSAT, would you treat this as evidence? I hope it's clear to you now.

research11 · Answer

I get what you’re trying to say. But what could an “evidence” be in this case (as an example?)

mayankdgmat · Answer

Evidence could be like "a government report indicated some changes done in policies to spur economic growth"

Posted from my mobile device

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Critic to economist: In yet another of your bumbling forecasts, last

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards