LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 17

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 17

December 1997

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:46

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 S3 Q17
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
85%
169
B
6%
160
C
0%
137
D
4%
167
E
5%
160
139
150
160
 +Medium 146.901 +SubsectionMedium

The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s economy are said to be causing people who still have their jobs to cut back on new purchases as though they, too, had become economically distressed. Clearly, however, actual spending by such people is undiminished, because there has been no unusual increase in the amount of money held by those people in savings accounts.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author looks at a trend of job losses and concludes that, contrary to what some people say, those who have managed to keep their jobs are spending just as much money as they ever have, rather than reining in spending. As evidence, the author points out that these employed people haven’t been increasing the size of their savings accounts.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters a position held by others. She does this by first predicting a cause-and-effect relationship that we’d expect to see if that other position were true: if employed people really were reducing their spending, their savings accounts would likely grow as a result. The author then shows that the effect (more savings) hasn’t occurred, which undermines the likelihood that the cause (reduced spending) has occurred either.

A
concluding that since an expected consequence of a supposed development did not occur, that development itself did not take place
The supposed development is a reduction in spending by people who are still employed, and the expected consequence is unusual growth in those people’s saving accounts. The author concludes that since there’s been no unusual growth, there’s been no reduction in spending.
B
concluding that since only one of the two predictable consequences of a certain kind of behavior is observed to occur, this observed occurrence cannot, in the current situation, be a consequence of such behavior
The author only identifies one predictable consequence of reducing spending—namely, a growth in savings accounts. Also, the conclusion isn’t about whether something is the consequence of a certain behavior—rather, the conclusion is that the behavior itself isn’t occurring.
C
arguing that since people’s economic behavior is guided by economic self-interest, only misinformation or error will cause people to engage in economic behavior that harms them economically
The author never raises the subjects of economic self-interest, misinformation, error, or economically harmful behavior.
D
arguing that since two alternative developments exhaust all the plausible possibilities, one of those developments occurred and the other did not
This ignores reasoning by cause-and-effect, which is central to the author’s argument. Instead, (D) describes the following, very different argument: since employed people either did or did not reduce spending, it must be that they did not reduce spending.
E
concluding that since the evidence concerning a supposed change is ambiguous, it is most likely that no change is actually taking place
The only evidence presented is clear, not ambiguous. The author states, without any ambiguity, that there’s been no unusual increase in the size of employed people’s savings accounts.

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