Some government economists view their home countries as immune to outside influence. But economies are always open s...

Sangwook on December 31, 2014

Help

This is a strengthen with sufficient premise question, isn't it? Then, how does a choice (A) strengthen the conclusion on the stimulus with 100%? Thanks,

2 Replies

Melody on January 5, 2015

This is a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion.

Here the question stem states: "the argument's conclusion follows logically if," thus the argument needs the answer choice to be correct. If that is the case, we know that we are dealing with a strengthen with necessary premise question.

So, as you know, first we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.

Conclusion: "government economists must look beyond national borders if their nations' economies are to prosper."

Why? Though "some government economists view their home countries as immune to outside influence," we are told that economies are "open systems," e.g. we are told that international trade significantly affects prices and wages. The argument ends on a comparison to physicists and how they "learned the shortcomings of a mechanics based on idealizations such as the postulation of perfectly frictionless bodies."

Answer choice (A) states: "A national economy cannot prosper unless every significant influence on it has been examined by that nation's government economists."

Does this strengthen the argument? Yes.

Let's diagram:

P: NEP ==> ESI
not ESI ==> not NEP

If we take answer choice (A) to be true, then the conclusion of the argument--that in order for their nations' economies to prosper, the government economists must look beyond national borders--is strengthened because answer choice (A) states that if a national economy is to prosper, then every significant influence on it has been examined by that nation's government economists.

Negation of answer choice (A): A national economy can prosper even if every significant influence on it has not been examined by that nation's government economists.

Does this make the argument fall apart? Yes.

If it is not necessary for every influence on a country to be examined by that nation's government economists for that national economy to prosper, then the argument's conclusion--that in order for their nations' economies to prosper, the government economists must look beyond national borders--is no longer necessarily true.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Sangwook on January 8, 2015

Thanks a lot^^