LSAT 122 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 122 - Section 1 - Question 13

June 2006

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:43

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
PT122 S1 Q13
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Net Effect +NetEff
A
13%
159
B
5%
158
C
65%
164
D
15%
159
E
2%
154
138
153
168
 +Harder 146.495 +SubsectionMedium

Robin: When a region’s economy is faltering, many people lose their jobs. As a result, spending on consumer goods declines, leading in turn to more lost jobs and a worsening of the economy. Eventually, the economy becomes so bad that prices collapse; the lower prices encourage people to increase spending on consumer goods, and this higher spending results in economic improvement.

Terry: People cannot increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities, so price collapses cannot lead to economic improvement.

Summarize Argument
Robin argues that once prices collapse in a faltering economy, the economy will begin to improve as people take advantage of low prices and spending increases. Terry argues that price collapse does not lead to economic improvement because people can’t increase spending without jobs and money.

Notable Assumptions
Terry assumes that in an economy so poor that prices collapse, people do not have the jobs and/or money to take advantage of the lower prices and increase spending at a macro level.

A
Companies hire more workers after the economy starts to improve again, and many newly hired workers then make long-deferred purchases.
This does not affect Terry’s argument, which focuses not on what happens after the economy begins to improve, but on how the economy improves in the first place.
B
Even when economic conditions are worsening, consumers realize that the economy will eventually improve.
This does not affect Terry’s argument. Individuals may realize the economy will eventually improve and still have no jobs or money to take advantage of lower prices.
C
Even people who do not lose their jobs spend less in bad economic times and thus have savings available to spend when prices collapse.
This weakens Terry’s argument. It attacks his assumption that, in a faltering economy, there aren’t people with the resources to take advantage of lower prices and stimulate the economy enough for improvement. (C) says some people do have money to stimulate the economy.
D
People who have lost their jobs must continue to buy some basic goods such as food, even during bad economic times.
This does not affect Terry’s argument, which specifically notes that people have no money for anything other than basic necessities.
E
The prices of some consumer goods remain stable, even during a general price collapse.
This does not affect Terry’s argument, which relies on the idea that regardless of whether prices are consistent or lower, people cannot afford to increase their spending in a faltering economy.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply