Economist: A country's trade deficit may indicate weakness in its economy, but it does not in itself weaken that eco...

shunhe on February 21, 2020

Hi @lsatmaxuser,

Thanks for the question! The difference between (B) and (C) is that in (C), the author is using her own analogy to support her argument. In (B), in the other hand, the author is arguing against someone else’s analogy and showing that its faulty.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

annasc on February 25, 2020

what words in answer choice C show this?

B: demonstrating that an analogy explicitly used to establish a certain conclusion is faulty
C: appealing to an analogy in order to indicate the futility of a course of action

both answer choices seem vague regarding whose analogy is being referred to since they both say "an analogy" and not a specific analogy

SamA on February 29, 2020

Hey @lsatmaxuser,

Shunhe is correct, but I'll add to his argument to see if I can make things clearer for you.

Let's break down the economist's argument. She is saying that an attempt to reduce a trade deficit would not help the economy. Why? Because a trade deficit is just an indicator of a weak economy, not a cause of a weak economy. Similarly, a thermometer is just an indicator of a person's sickness. It is not a cause. The author presents this as an analogy to demonstrate the futility of restricting imports. This is why C is correct.

Let's say that I responded to the economist: "Studies show that restricting imports does help the economy. Therefore, your analogy is stupid and doesn't apply here."

I have just employed the technique from answer choice B. I said that the analogy is faulty. This is not what the author did. Remember that the question is asking us which strategy the author employs. She uses an analogy to draw her conclusion. She does not criticise the use of an analogy.