Critical Reasoning

The coming economic recovery will surely be strong. Most of the economists in the investment companies now aggree this is so, though the leading academic economists still think otherwise. since the investment companies' economists are risking their jobs when they make forecasts, wheras academic economists have lifelong tenure, it generally makes sense to take the investment companies' economists more seriously.

The main conclusion of the argument is supported only

A. by comparing the number of experts who agree with the conclusion with the number who disagree with the conclusion

B. through an assessment of the likely risks and consequences of believing one or another strand of expert opinion

C. through projection from the economic prospects for investment companies to the economic prospects for the economy as a whole

D. through an assessment of the relative reliability of the experts who agree with the conclusion as compared with that of those who disagree

E. by attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion

Does this question not sound more like an "evaluation" question? I doubt that it is a "classical" strengthening one.

I would go with C.

The issue here is that two different group of experts have voiced their opinions and the argument is that the opinion of investment companies' economists should be relied upon because they are risking their jobs whereas the academicians are not.

A. by comparing the number of experts who agree with the conclusion with the number who disagree with the conclusion --> Numbers really are not a concern here. It is the collective opinion that matters.

B. through an assessment of the likely risks and consequences of believing one or another strand of expert opinion --> Consequence of believing an opinion? really? IMO, that would harm what we are trying to objectively decide.

C. through projection from the economic prospects for investment companies to the economic prospects for the economy as a whole --> Is this not a factor? What if the investment companies' prospects are bright while the economy's prospects are not?

D. through an assessment of the relative reliability of the experts who agree with the conclusion as compared with that of those who disagree --> Relative reliability of experts again is a shaky ground. relative to what?

E. by attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion --> No way!

Between C and D, I would go with C. OA?

I'd go with B.

Conclusion: it generally makes sense to take the investment companies' economists more seriously
Why: Because the above economists risk their jobs to make such claims

Choice B gives us that underlying assumption supporting this argument

EssaySnark actually thinks it's D.

Choice B is a trick - it's talking about the risks that could incur if you believe one or the other types of expert. But the passage only talks about potential risks to the expert.

"Taking the investment co. economists more seriously" in the last sentence is the conclusion of someone making an "assessment of the relative reliability of the experts."

Nothing in the passage talks directly about the economic prospects to the investment companies, and so there is literally nothing there "in support of" C. You could possibly infer that that's what would be motivating the investment co. economists but it's not discussed at all, so we're ruling out C. Also, the academic economists aren't involved in "projecting" any investment co. prospects, so C only relates to one class of economist, not both. The concluding statement "take invstmt co econ more serioulsy" is a comparison and thus the answer chosen must relate to both types of experts.

At least, this is how we are seeing it! We're going with D.

EssaySnark

IMO C.

B is out as we will just to take a side and not to assess.
D (here reliability is not a question, both are reliable) & E are also out.

Out of A & C, C is better.

it is question of reliability, hence because investment company's economists risk their jobs while making projections of economy ,hence D

i think this question can rephrased as "The answer to which of the following is most directly relevant to lead to conclusion " ?

Since the conclusion talks about differing viewpoints of two sects of economists on a single issue and concludes that we must go with economists by citing the bigger risk they face in case of wrong predictions , the question out of the options whose answer would most directly be relevant should have to do something(Possible compare) with the AUTHENTICITY of the predictions of the two sects.

Thus B and D are two possible choices

However , B, talks about the consequences of a believing a prediction and not the probability of that prediction being true. The relationship between a wrong prediction and consequences might not be direct

Hence IMO : D

1947 wrote:The coming economic recovery will surely be strong. Most of the economists in the investment companies now aggree this is so, though the leading academic economists still think otherwise. since the investment companies' economists are risking their jobs when they make forecasts, wheras academic economists have lifelong tenure, it generally makes sense to take the investment companies' economists more seriously.

The main conclusion of the argument is supported only

A. by comparing the number of experts who agree with the conclusion with the number who disagree with the conclusion

B. through an assessment of the likely risks and consequences of believing one or another strand of expert opinion

C. through projection from the economic prospects for investment companies to the economic prospects for the economy as a whole

D. through an assessment of the relative reliability of the experts who agree with the conclusion as compared with that of those who disagree

E. by attacking the character of those experts who disagree with the conclusion

+1 for D

whats the coorect answer:S

IMO D

Please post OA.

+1 D

+1 for D.

Crick

1947, where are you? Pl post the OA. Our community rule......

OA is D...sorry for late response