Q5 - In some countries, there

[b91302310]

I'm still confused by (B). The argument says that the vast majority of the population is denied "vital information", so these countries are likely to experience more frequent economic crises than other countries do. Answer choice (B) states that economic crises become more frequent as "the amount of information" availabe to the population decreases. So, since the decrease of "the amount of information" available to the population does not suggest that the vast majority of the population cannot access the "vital information", why could this one justify the conclusion ?

Could anyone help to explain?
Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you're misreading answer choice (B). We're asked to justify the conclusion drawn in the argument. You have the argument core properly identified.

people are denied vital information, therefore... more frequent economic crises

The problem comes in with your interpretation of answer choice (B).

since the decrease of "the amount of information" available to the population does not suggest that the vast majority of the population cannot access the "vital information"

Answer choice (B) does not suggest this. Instead, it suggests that as people are denied more and more information, economic crises become more and more frequent. This simply bridges the gap in the original argument.

Let's just look at the incorrect answers real quick.

(A) doesn't support the conclusion about the frequency of economic crises.
(C) may be tempting but shifts the language from "small elite" to "government." This answer choice does not connect with anything in the evidence.
(D) is irrelevant.
(E) is irrelevant or requires an assumption that manipulating information for the benefit of the small elite will lead to more frequent economic crises.

Does that answer your question?

[LSAT-Chang]

(C) may be tempting but shifts the language from "small elite" to "government." This answer choice does not connect with anything in the evidence.

Wow I did not even notice that word shift.

Although there isn't much to diagram, I just did (since I am currently in the process of just practicing diagramming conditional logic when I see them):

denied vital information about factors that determine welfare --> experience economic crisis

I think what trapped me to answer choice (C) was that I didn't take note of the "small elite" and so totally forgot about that and I also didn't note anything about "experience MORE frequent economic crisis" so when I read (B), I automatically eliminated it because I thought they were doing the "More A then More B" when there is nothing about frequency in the argument -- but in fact, there is! However, my question is.. in regards to answer choice (B) when it says "as the amount of information available to the population about fators determining its welfare DECREASES" -- where did the decrease come from? I understand that the author concludes that these countries are likely to experience MORE frequent economic crisis when they are denied vital information, but what about the "decreases" part? Is it correct because it is a lesser logical leap than "small elite" to "government"? I mean I would have totally crossed out (C) and would have probably been left with (B) in the end, if I had wrote the "more frequent" part in my diagram and also remembered the "small elite --> government" part, but just wondering how you can assume about welfare "decreasing". I feel like there is no evidence for it. Also, is it crucial to take note of such words? I changed my method of diagram from doing stuff like "DVIWF --> EEC" to "denied vital info welfare --> experience econ crisis" but I guess that still isn't sufficient... since it led me to the wrong answer choice.

[timmydoeslsat]

Even if choice C were to say small elite rather than just government, it still would not be sufficient to make the conclusion valid. Our conclusion is that the countries with a vast majority of its population denied access to vital information IS LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE MORE economic crises than other countries.

Choice C simply states for the "denying vital info" countries that economic crises are common. OK, they are common? No evidence still that they are likely to experience more than others!

B is sufficient assumption and here is why:

Some countries have access to vital information that determine their welfare as indicated in the stimulus.

These small elite controlled countries deny the vast majority of its population information about factors that determine their welfare.


IF IT IS TRUE that economic crises BECOME MORE FREQUENT as the amount of information available to the population about factors determining its welfare decreases.

We know for a fact that these small elite countries have a decreasing amount information available to them. Those "some countries" mentioned earlier have a free flow of information. We know they have more. This answer choice lets us know that those small elite countries will economic crises occur more often than those "some countries."

Other answer choices: (Remembering that the conclusion that introduced this new idea of "small elite countries" are likely to experience more economic crises. We need something tying the premises to this idea of economic crises at the very least! As choice C showed us, just knowing that they are common does not let us conclude that other countries will be less likely!

A) Political power is too much of a word switch here. We don't know what kind of political power the population has in a small elite controlled country. We also don't know the "some countries" are in fact countries with people in power.

C) Mentioned above.

D) Does not help to conclude anything about the economic crises.

E) Ditto.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Although there isn't much to diagram, I just did (since I am currently in the process of just practicing diagramming conditional logic when I see them):

Notice that there isn't much reference or utilization of conditional logic in either my explanation or timmydoeslsat's. It may be possible to force the information into conditional logic, but it doesn't seem appropriate.

Only use conditional logic when it is obvious, and try not to force it into places where it's not. Here are signs that conditional logic may be the right approach; language cues implying conditionality (if, only if, unless, etc.), repeated terms so that you can use the transitive property and link statements together, certain question types that are more likely to utilize conditional logic (sufficient assumptions, inference, match the reasoning/flaw, and principle questions), and the location of the question in the section (generally there is more conditional logic towards the end of the section than towards the beginning as it's considered a relatively challenging task).

Hope that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

This gave me a little bit of trouble, probably because I wasn't putting the necessary emphasis on the "MORE FREQUENT" part of the conclusion but I'll go over this with my thoughts either way.

The vast majority of the population is denied vital information about factors that determine their welfare
-->
"These countries" are likely to experience more frequent economic crises than other countries

***"These countries" refers to those discussed in the premise

Ok so what this is basically saying is that being denied this information leads to more frequent economic crises. Thus, the gap is between getting information and getting economic crises...why does one have to lead to the other?

(A) The argument's conclusion is presumably talking about the entire population of the country, or rather, the country as a whole. We know nothing about how the effects of these economic crises are distributed. Also, there is a slight jump between "people without political power" to people that are not the "small elite."

(C) There is two problems with this. Just because something is "common" doesn't mean that it is "more frequent." Also, there is a jump between "government" and "small elite." Maybe these two entities are mutually exclusive and the government has little power.

(D) Who is to say that "better decisions" means those that don't lead to economic crises? Maybe better decisions is just "better" for the small elite. Who knows.

(E) Does manipulation lead to economic crises? We don't know.

(B) This is correct. If the crises become more frequent as information decreases, then we can safely see that these countries without as much information have more frequent economic crises than the other countries