Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q14 Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises

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

Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises.

Conclusion (thus)

During a recession, air pollution due to auto exhaust decreases.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

Cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Evidence (since)

During a recession, unemployment typically rises.

And so fewer people are commuting in cars to jobs.

Evaluate

This is a Comparative argument. We need to compare how much auto exhaust there is during a recession vs. not during a recession.

The author covers one difference:

During a recession, fewer people have jobs, so fewer people are commuting in cars to jobs, so that should mean less auto exhaust.

We need to consider whether there could be other differences.

What if during a recession, more people take road trips (since they don't have a job), and so that's actually leads to more driving, more exhaust.

Or what if during a recession, the jobless people are driving around from job interview to job interview trying to get a job?

Goal

The author is fundamentally assuming that we get a savings on auto exhaust because many people will no longer use their cars to commute to work. But what if they continue to use their cars (possibly even more than before) for other reasons, such as road trips or job-hunting?

The argument is assuming,

14.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which Charles's argument depends?

  1. People who have never been

    One Word Off

    If this said "drive no more frequently" then we could pick this answer. When we negate this, it says, "People who are always jobless drive less frequently during a recession than they would otherwise". That strengthens the author's conclusion that during a recession auto exhaust decreases. The correct answer, when negated, would weaken. If the negation was saying, "The permanently jobless actually drive more during a recession", that would weaken.

    1% picked this

  2. Most air pollution is caused

    Too Strong: most

    The word most is wrong 99% or more of the time we see it in Necessary Assumption. Would it make any difference to this argument whether 51% vs. 49% of air pollution is caused by people commuting to jobs? Of course not. That's why it's not necessary for most air pollution to be caused by commuting. The author's conclusion is only saying that during a recession, auto exhaust will decrease. It can decrease by any amount and from any source (a big source or a small source) and the author's conclusion would still be true.

    18% picked this

  3. Most people who are employed

    Too Strong: most

    The word most is wrong 99% of the time we see it in Necessary Assumption. Would it make any difference to this argument whether 51% vs. 49% of employed people avoid public transportation on their commute? Of course not. That's why it's not necessary for most employed people to avoid pollution to be caused by commuting. If we negate this answer and say "most employed people do use public transportation", that doesn't hurt the argument. As long as some people commute using their cars during non-recessionary times, and as long as fewer people commute using their cars during recessions, then the argument can still make sense. The author's conclusion is only saying that during a recession, auto exhaust will decrease. It can decrease by any amount and from any source (a big source or a small source) and the author's conclusion would still be true.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    During a recession, decreases in

    Why this is right

    When we negate this answer, it says that "during a recession the decrease in car use for commuting to jobs is offset by increased use of cars for other reasons" (like going on road trips or hunting for a new job or babysitting your niece). If the "savings" we're getting on auto exhaust from jobless people no longer driving their cars to work is offset (i.e. canceled out) by these people using their cars more for other reasons, then we're not getting any savings on auto exhaust overall.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    71% picked this

  5. During a recession, a higher

    Irrelevant Comparison

    Does the author need job losses to affect the car-commuting community more than it affects the public transportation commuting community? No, it doesn't matter which community job losses affects more. As long as job losses during a recession affect the car-commuting population by reducing the number of cars commuting to work, the author's premise makes sense. The author's conclusion is only saying that during a recession, auto exhaust will decrease. It can decrease by any amount and from any source (a big source or a small source) and the author's conclusion would still be true.

    6% 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