Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q4 Compared to us, people who

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

Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them.

Conclusion (Therefore)

People a century ago probably read much more than we do today.

Evidence

People who lived a century ago had few ways to amuse themselves than we do today.

Evaluate

The author is definitely assuming the Linking idea of, "If fewer diversions, then more reading".

If we were trying to argue the Anti-Conclusion we'd be thinking,

Given that ... people 100 years ago had fewer ways to amuse themselves,

How can we still argue that ... people 100 years ago read just as much (or less) than they do today?

We might say most of them weren't literate, so they couldn't read. Or they didn't have access to books. Or they didn't enjoy reading.

We might say that the diversions they did have available to them (like fishing or baseball) were obsessions that ate up all their time.

We might say that nowadays, even though we have a much bigger number of options for how to amuse ourselves, we still gravitate mainly toward reading.

Goal

Look for a way to argue that people from a century ago didn't read that much, people nowadays read a ton, or "fewer diversions ≠ more reading".

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

Many of the books published
Small Impact: many
If we said that all or almost all of the books published a century ago were very unenjoyable to read, then that would help us make the case that people from back then didn't do much reading. But this answer is too weak. "Many" is an unspecific quantity that means "at least a handful". So saying, "There were at least 5-10 books a century ago that were of low literary quality" doesn't have much impact. We know, naturally, that there are at least 5-10 books nowadays that have low literary quality. So we're not saying much.
2% picked this
Correct
On average, people who lived
Why this is right
This points to another difference between then and now, and this difference helps us argue that people back then would do less reading than people nowadays. Sure they had fewer options for amusement, but they also had considerably less leisure time. If you're plowing the fields or working the factory floor for 15 hours a day, then you might only have 30 minutes to read at night, and so you're not really reading more than people nowadays. "Considerably less" has some punch, which is what we want on Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox. This answer by no means proves they did less reading back then, but that's not the job of a correct answer. It weakens by introducing a new factor that works against the author's conclusion. The more leisure time people have, the more they could potentially read for pleasure. The less leisure time people have, the less they can read. By introducing a distinction between then and now that makes it sound like "nowadays, we have much more leisure time", it makes it harder to argue that people back then read much more than we do today.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
The number of books sold
Unclear Impact
On its face, the idea that more books are sold today definitely sounds like it could help us argue that people nowadays read just as much or more than did people 100 years ago. But it's hard to know if "books sold" is a great metric of how much people read. 100 years ago there wouldn't have been nearly as many publishing houses or digital printers. It's way easier to produce and sell books nowadays. The population has also grown a lot since 100 years ago. A more persuasive metric would be "the average number books owned by each person is larger today than it was a century ago". With this answer, the author can say, "Sure there are more books sold, but that's because it's easy to print a book and there are just more people alive. Just because the book is sold, though, doesn't mean that people read it. After all, they have many more diversions to amuse themselves." The author doesn't think that people today don't read because we don't have access to lots of books, but rather because we do have access to lots of leisure activities that aren't reading-books.
13% picked this
On the average, books today
Weak Impact: slightly less
If 100 years ago, books cost slightly more in relation to other goods than books cost nowadays, that somewhat helps us weaken the idea that people back then read more. We can try to argue that people back then would have been less likely to buy a book because books were slightly more expensive than they are today. But the author can quickly counter with, "Yes, but people 100 years ago had very few other options for entertainment, so that outweighs the fact that books cost slightly more than they do today, relative to other goods".
2% picked this
One of the popular diversions
No Impact
We know that book-reading wasn't the only diversion available to people 100 years ago. The salient fact is that there were very few diversions. This answer just names one of the other ones that existed, but that has no impact on the conversation.
5% 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