LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 10

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:59

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S2 Q10
+LR
Argument part +AP
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
3%
163
B
3%
163
C
1%
146
D
2%
160
E
92%
168
128
139
151
 +Easier 150.088 +SubsectionMedium

Economist: The economy seems to be heading out of recession. Recent figures show that consumers are buying more durable goods than before, indicating that they expect economic growth in the near future.

Summarize Argument
The economist tells us that the current recession appears to be ending. To support this, we get a chain of reasoning. First, a fact: consumers have started purchasing more durable goods. Second, an interpretation based on this fact (i.e. a sub-conclusion): consumers expect economic growth soon. And with this, the economist supports the conclusion that the recession seems to be ending.

Identify Argument Part
The claim that consumers are buying more durable goods than before is a factual premise. More specifically, it is a premise that supports a sub-conclusion (consumers expect economic growth), which then supports the main conclusion (the recession is ending).

A
It is the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
The argument isn’t really trying to explain a phenomenon. Instead, the economist is trying to make a prediction about the future based on current data. This answer choice just isn’t accurate to the argument.
B
Its truth is required in order for the argument’s conclusion to be true.
The conclusion that the recession seems to be ending may be supported by the claim about consumers’ purchases, but that doesn’t mean one is required for the other. The economist could be mistaken about the consumers but the conclusion could still be true.
C
It is an inference drawn from the premise that the recession seems to be ending.
Like (D), this gets things backwards: the claim that the recession seems to be ending is the main conclusion, not a premise. Also, the claim about consumers’ purchases is stated as a fact, not inferred from something else.
D
It is an inference drawn from the premise that consumers expect economic growth in the near future.
Like (C), this gets things backwards: the claim about consumers’ expectations is a sub-conclusion supported by the claim about consumers’ purchases. Also, the claim about consumers’ purchases is a factual premise, not an inference.
E
It is the primary evidence from which the argument’s conclusion is drawn.
This accurately describes the role of the claim about consumers’ purchases. It’s the only pure factual premise in the argument, meaning it’s our only piece of hard evidence. The rest of the argument is just a series of inferences drawn from this evidence.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply