LSAT 143 – Section 3 – Question 22
LSAT 143 - Section 3 - Question 22
June 2015You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:38
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT143 S3 Q22 |
+LR
| Except +Exc Weaken +Weak Causal Reasoning +CausR | A
69%
166
B
8%
159
C
4%
155
D
9%
159
E
10%
160
|
149 157 165 |
+Harder | 147.721 +SubsectionMedium |
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
Opponents of the political party hypothesize that the 10% decrease in average family income was a result of government mismanagement. They give no support for this claim.
Notable Assumptions
Opponents of the political party assume that no other factor—a worldwide or regional economic downturn, for example—besides government mismanagement caused the 10% decrease in average family income.
A
There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation.
We don’t care what happened one year. We’re trying to weaken the connection between the 10% decrease and government mismanagement.
B
For noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning.
Rather than being caused by the government’s economic mismanagement, the 10% decrease has a noneconomic cause.
C
During the period, international events beyond the control of the country’s government had a negative effect on family incomes in the country.
The government wasn’t responsible for the global events that caused the 10% decrease.
D
Younger wage earners usually earn less than older ones, and the average age of household wage earners fell during most years in the past several decades.
Demographic issues, rather than economic mismanagement, caused the 10% decrease.
E
The biggest decreases in family income resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came to power in 1996.
The ruling party wasn’t responsible for the policies that caused the 10% decrease. Thus, they aren’t guilty of economic mismanagement that led to the 10% decrease.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 143 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.