Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q18 The widespread staff reductions

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Conclusion (clearly)

Actual spending by people who still have their jobs has not gone down.

Evidence (because)

There has been no unusual increase in the amount of money held by those people in savings accounts.

Evaluate

Some people were thinking that with a recession seemingly looming, the people who do still have jobs would start tightening their purse strings, "putting away money for a rainy day". If I usually spend $300 / month going out to restaurants and bars, I'm going to think,

If I were to stop going out to bars / restaurants, then I'll have an extra $300 per month.

What do I do with that money? Where does it go?

In the author's mind, she assumes that if I am no longer spending that $300, then I will put that into a savings account.

But who says that's what I would do with it? Maybe when I save money, I put it into a checking account. Maybe I put it under the mattress or in the back of my freezer. Maybe I leave it for safe-keeping with my Grandma and say, "Don't let me spend this".

The author is failing to consider all the other things we might do with extra money, were we to reduce our spending and suddenly have more available funds each month.

Goal

Look for a LINKING answer saying,

Or look for a DEFENDER answer ruling out some other place we'd stash our savings, like, .

18.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

Correct
If people in the region
Why this is right
Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and an answer choice is ruling out something using wording like "no / not", we want to slow down and take a look, because many correct answers on NA have that form. If we negate it (remove the "not"), does it weaken? Yes! The author was assuming that if people with jobs were really spending less and saving more, that extra money would show up in their savings accounts. But we can attack that assumption by saying, "they are spending less / saving more, but they are using that extra saved money to pay down their debts more aggressively." This objection gives us a way to reconcile "spending less" with "no increase in savings account", by pointing to a different thing we could do with our extra money if we decide to spend less.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
57% picked this
People in the region who
Weakens
This would be an Alternate Possibility for where people who are spending less could be funneling their extra money. We could say, "Yo, author -- people with jobs are spending less. You're not seeing a spike in their savings accounts because they're sending that extra money to their struggling relatives." This would have been a correct answer if it said, "People who continue to be employed are not sending the extra money they're saving to their struggling relatives."
13% picked this
If people in the region
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: new job pays less The fact that this answer is dealing with people who have lost their jobs immediately tells you it's irrelevant, since conclusion is only about people who do still have their jobs. Our author certainly hasn't committed to any position on whether an unemployed person's next job will pay less / similar / better than their current job does.
3% picked this
People in the region who
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: increasing incomes Opposite, if anything We're only talking about whether the employed people are feeling like they're economically worse than before. This answer is talking about whether they think in the future they'll be better than they are now. And since our author is countering the view of people who say, "the employed are feeling economic pessimism", our author is more on the side of, "Employed people aren't feeling economic pessimism -- their spending is undiminished."
16% picked this
There exist no statistics about
Too Strong: no stats
The author certainly hasn't committed to an extreme idea that there are no statistics about sales of goods in the entire region. If we negated this and said, "There are statistics about sales of goods in the region as a whole", would that hurt the argument? No, not unless we knew what those sales figures revealed (which this does not). If an answer said, "Statistics about sales of goods in the region as a whole do not show a big increase in spending" we could consider that as a viable answer.
11% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free