Hey there! I edited your post's title and removed PT questions. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question." Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question; this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!
The argument's main causal link is: increased minimum wage --> more disposable income --> more consumer spending--> more demand for consumer goods --> more factory jobs to meet production --> decreased unemployment.
Answer choices that weaken the argument will try to weaken this chain of events. They'll most likely add a confounding factor that stops the chain somewhere, or breaks one or more of the causal relationships. Let's see which answer choices do this, and select the one that doesn't.
(A) weakens the argument by saying people won't have more disposable income. Instead, the higher prices of goods would restrict their disposable income. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(B) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs in Country X, because these goods are produced in another country. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(D) weakens the argument by saying we won't have decreased unemployment, we'll actually have increased unemployment because of layoffs. The conclusion is thwarted, this weakens the argument.
(E) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs, because most factories have a surplus of goods that they have to get rid of first. The chain is affected, this is a weakener.
(C) is not a weakener, even though some of its words may allude it to be. It's especially not a weakener because of the word many, which effectively means some. If some factories pay most of their employees more than minimum wage, it doesn't affect any part of the chain of events. What about other factories? What about other non-factory minimum-wage jobs? Even with (C), minimum-wage job holders could have more disposable income, leading to more spending, more demand, more factory jobs, and decreased unemployment. The argument is not weakened.
To make (C) work, you are probably assuming that it says most factories pay most of their employees more than minimum-wage, and thus that there aren't many minimum-wage jobs holders who will follow this chain of events. These are two unfair assumptions, and not what (C) says (many≠most). In fact, the stimulus also implies that a large segment of the working population holds minimum-wage jobs.
I hope this helps.
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
3 comments
Hey there! I edited your post's title and removed PT questions. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question." Also, please do not post the entire question and answer choices for the LSAC question; this is copyrighted content and is against the Forum Rules. Thanks!
The argument's main causal link is: increased minimum wage --> more disposable income --> more consumer spending--> more demand for consumer goods --> more factory jobs to meet production --> decreased unemployment.
Answer choices that weaken the argument will try to weaken this chain of events. They'll most likely add a confounding factor that stops the chain somewhere, or breaks one or more of the causal relationships. Let's see which answer choices do this, and select the one that doesn't.
(A) weakens the argument by saying people won't have more disposable income. Instead, the higher prices of goods would restrict their disposable income. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(B) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs in Country X, because these goods are produced in another country. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(D) weakens the argument by saying we won't have decreased unemployment, we'll actually have increased unemployment because of layoffs. The conclusion is thwarted, this weakens the argument.
(E) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs, because most factories have a surplus of goods that they have to get rid of first. The chain is affected, this is a weakener.
(C) is not a weakener, even though some of its words may allude it to be. It's especially not a weakener because of the word many, which effectively means some. If some factories pay most of their employees more than minimum wage, it doesn't affect any part of the chain of events. What about other factories? What about other non-factory minimum-wage jobs? Even with (C), minimum-wage job holders could have more disposable income, leading to more spending, more demand, more factory jobs, and decreased unemployment. The argument is not weakened.
To make (C) work, you are probably assuming that it says most factories pay most of their employees more than minimum-wage, and thus that there aren't many minimum-wage jobs holders who will follow this chain of events. These are two unfair assumptions, and not what (C) says (many≠most). In fact, the stimulus also implies that a large segment of the working population holds minimum-wage jobs.
I hope this helps.