The critic argues that the economist's forecast was wrong considering the economy did not go into recession. The economist responds that his forecast was correct, but it was conditioned on current economic policies staying the same. Since the country's leaders changed economic policies, this state of affairs on which the economist's prediction depended never came true, i.e. current economic policies did not stay the same, and the forecasted recession, therefore, never happened as well. (A) accurately describes the economist's response by pointing out that his forecast is conditioned upon a certain state of affairs.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
#JWNovember 6, 2019
I understand A being correct but how is E eliminated? Is it because the critic says "... if economic policies did not change." which is not a factual premise based on the economist's response?
shunheDecember 28, 2019
Hi @#JW,
(E) can be eliminated because the economist doesn't argue with the factual premises of the critic. The factual premises, after all, have to do with what happens in reality, and the critic's factual premises are as following:
1) Last year, the economist made a prediction that the country's economy would soon go into recession if current economic policies weren't changed 2) Economic growth is even stronger this year.
To offer evidence against these factual premises would be to suggest that the economist didn't make that prediction last year, or that economic growth is not stronger this year. But the economist doesn't deny that she made the warning last year, nor does the economist deny that economic growth is even stronger. She instead disputes the reasons lying behind the factual premises of the critic. Hope this helps!
