Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
PT34.S3.Q21-- thirty years ago, the percentage of their income
Darklord
Alum Member
Hi,
So I understand most of the reason why C is correct in this question, but how we can assume that if "single persons, on average, purchase the same kinds of food items" then this is consistent with all people who spent 2 times more money on food 30 years ago? After all, if something occurs on an average, doesn't that mean that it isn't necessarily true that all people do that something?
Hope my question makes sense
Any #help would be appreciated!
Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-21/
Comments
Hi there!
You do indeed have the correct understanding of averages. However, keep in mind that we do not need the correct answer choice to say "all," so we do not need to assume that the average includes all.
I think that there are two important points to make here. First of all, C is talking about the average for a person. So there might indeed people who purchase more than they used to, but these individuals are balanced out by individuals who purchase less than they used to. So I don't think that the fact that the answer choice doesn't say "all" is much of a knock against it.
Furthermore, even if we needed C to say "all" to make the argument valid (and i'm not convinced that we do) this is not a sufficient assumption question. This is a psuedo-sufficient assumption question. While in general we are taught to think of PSA questions as being very close to SA questions with maybe an almost imperceptible assumption involved, I don't know if that is the most helpful format to attack these questions with. For the older tests I think that this framework works, but for the newer tests (the 80s in particular) the test writers have occasionally made the correct answers to PSA questions much weaker. There was one question I recall where the correct answer to a PSA question was much closer to a necessary assumption than a sufficient assumption.
Due to this, I have found that for myself the most helpful way to think of PSA question is just to classify them as strengthening questions. The question stem for a PSA always says "most," so just keep that word in mind and do the question like a normal strengthening. If there are 4 totally irrelevant answers and one NA, then that is the correct answer. If there are several answers that would make the argument stronger but one that would make it valid, then you pick the one that would make it valid. On the newer tests this really has been important for me. I am evaluating each answer choice to find what gives the most possible support to the argument. It doesn't matter where that support falls on a 1-100 scale. As long as the answer choice that I select is higher on the scale than the other available choices, that is the one that I am going with. I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify!
Wow, I really like that insight on pseudo-sufficient assumption questions! This really helped-- thank you!