The correct answer is (A).
(A) Method of Argument
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The word "by" may be small, but it indicates that the question is asking for how the economist responds to the critic, not what the economist says. The goal of a Method of Argument question is to describe how an argument is made. Focus on the structure of the argument and avoid answers that dwell on the details. Often, in a dialogue stimulus, the second speaker points out a flaw in the first speaker's argument. Your knowledge of common flaw types will help you answer these questions.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The dialogue starts with a critic who attacks an economist for previously predicting that a recession would occur if economic policies weren't changed. The critic asserts that instead, the country saw economic growth. The economist defends the prediction by stating that economic policies did in fact change and that change prevented the recession.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
The key to answering this question is noticing the conditional aspect of the economist's original prediction: If policies were not changed (i.e., if they remained the same), the economy would suffer. The economist introduces evidence showing that policies were changed. Therefore, the sufficient condition that would result in a recession wasn't met. The critic's mistake then (a common one surrounding predictions) is assuming that conditions did remain the same.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(A), in rather fancy-sounding terms, is exactly what the economist doesÑshows how the condition (no change in policy) that would have led to the predicted result (recession) didn't happen.
(B) is off because the economist doesn't argue that the recession has yet to happen. By pointing out that economic policies changed, the economist proves original conditions no longer exist and therefore the original prediction will not follow, regardless of how much time passes.
(C) doesn't work because the economist doesn't point out an inconsistency between the critic's two statements. The critic's statements are adequately consistent with one another. Instead, the economist argues that the critic misinterpreted the conditions on which the economist's prediction was based.
(D) is off because the economist doesn't counter either of the critic's two claims: that the economist made a prediction and that the economy grew. Likely, the economist agrees with both of those claims.
(E) is off because the economist doesn't dispute any facts (he only quibbles with the characterization of his forecast as "bumbling"). Instead, the economist explains that the critic overlooks the conditional aspect of the prediction.
