LSAT 131 – Section 1 – Question 23

LSAT 131 - Section 1 - Question 23

December 2009

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
PT131 S1 Q23
+LR
+Exp
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
A
88%
166
B
3%
160
C
5%
160
D
2%
156
E
2%
158
139
148
157
 +Medium 147.383 +SubsectionMedium

Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as a 5 percent unemployment rate is correct, because at levels below 5 percent, inflation rises.

Brigita: That traditional definition of full employment was developed before the rise of temporary and part-time work and the fall in benefit levels. When people are juggling several part-time jobs with no benefits, or working in a series of temporary assignments, as is now the case, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment.

Speaker 1 Summary
Constance claims that it is correct to define full employment as a 5 percent unemployment rate. Why? Because when unemployment drops below 5 percent, inflation increases.

Speaker 2 Summary
Brigita argues that 5 percent unemployment is truly full employment. Why not? Because Constance’s definition doesn’t account for modern working conditions. Brigita says that when people are working multiple part-time or temporary jobs, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment. Furthermore, people currently do work in those conditions. Thus, 5 percent unemployment is not actually full employment.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Constance and Brigita disagree about whether full employment can be accurately defined as a 5 percent unemployment rate.

A
what definition of full employment is applicable under contemporary economic conditions
Constance thinks that the traditional definition of 5 percent unemployment is applicable. However, Brigita thinks that contemporary conditions make the traditional definition inapplicable. This is the speakers’ point of disagreement.
B
whether it is a good idea, all things considered, to allow the unemployment level to drop below 5 percent
Neither speaker makes a claim about whether it would be good or bad to allow unemployment to drop below 5 percent. Constance says that inflation rises when the unemployment rate is below 5 percent, but doesn’t say whether that’s a good or bad thing.
C
whether a person with a part-time job should count as fully employed
Neither speaker talks about the meaning of a individuals being fully employed. Constance and Brigita’s discussion is about full employment on a larger scale, across a whole economy.
D
whether the number of part-time and temporary workers has increased since the traditional definition of full employment was developed
Brigita agrees with this, but Constance doesn’t express an opinion. Constance thinks that the traditional definition is accurate, but that doesn’t mean she thinks there isn’t more part-time and temporary employment now.
E
whether unemployment levels above 5 percent can cause inflation levels to rise
Neither speaker claims that this is the case. Constance only says that unemployment levels below 5 percent cause inflation to rise, and Brigita doesn’t say anything about inflation. We don’t know what either speaker thinks about unemployment being over 5 percent.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply