Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT12 S4 Q11 Explanation

Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard as causing recession, was high preceding the recent recession, but so was the value of assets owned by households. Admittedly, if most of the assets were owned by quite affluent households, and most of the debt was owed by low‐income households, high household debt levels could since money is not lent to those without assets. Therefore, the real cause must lie elsewhere.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Conclusion

The author wants you to conclude that household debt didn't cause the recession — the cause is somewhere else.

Evidence

The author considers one pathway by which debt could cause recession: low-income households are the ones drowning in debt, so they cut spending to pay it down, dragging the economy down. The author dismisses this pathway by claiming the quite affluent are the ones who actually owe most of the debt (since you need assets to get loans).

Evaluate

Notice the gap. The author has split households into two groups: low-income and quite affluent. By eliminating low-income as the debt-burdened group, the author thinks the debt explanation is dead. But there's a third group right between them: middle-income households. The author never says anything about middle-income debt levels or spending behavior.

If middle-income households actually owed enough debt to cut spending — and there are a lot of middle-income households — that's a perfectly viable debt-causes-recession story the author hasn't ruled out. The conclusion ("the cause lies elsewhere") is in trouble.

Goal

Pick the answer that opens up the middle-income pathway the author overlooked.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
11.

Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on

Answer choices

  1. Correct43% picked this

    Prior to the recent recession, middle-income households owed enough debt that they had begun

    Why this is right

    This is exactly the gap the author overlooked. The author considered only two household categories — low-income and quite affluent — and ruled out low-income debt as the recession cause by attributing most debt to the affluent. But middle-income households fall between the two and were never addressed. If middle-income households owed enough to start cutting spending, the debt-causation pathway is alive and well: a huge middle-income group cutting spending could drag the economy into recession. The author's conclusion ("the cause lies elsewhere") falls apart.

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

  2. No Impact21% picked this

    The total value of the economy’s household debt is exceeded by the total value of

    The stimulus already says household assets were high — that doesn't bear on whether debt caused the recession. Whether asset value exceeded debt value or not isn't the question; the question is whether debt caused the spending changes. This restates a fact that's already in the argument and doesn't move the conclusion.

  3. No Impact6% picked this

    Low-income households somewhat decreased their spending during the

    "Somewhat" is too weak. The argument concedes significant low-income spending decreases would matter, but only if debt was concentrated there. A "somewhat" decrease in low-income spending isn't enough to overturn the author's overall claim that the cause lies elsewhere — and the author already addressed low-income spending behavior. This doesn't add a new threat to the argument.

  4. No Impact23% picked this

    During a recession the affluent usually borrow money only in order

    What the affluent borrow money for doesn't bear on the recession-causation question. Whether they used debt to buy assets or to fund consumption, the author's reasoning about the affluent failing to increase spending stands. This adds a fact about the purpose of borrowing without changing the spending dynamics that drive recessions.

  5. No Impact8% picked this

    Household debt is the category of debt least likely to affect

    This is a general claim about household debt being unlikely to affect the economy. If anything, it supports the author's conclusion (that the cause lies elsewhere) rather than undermining it. We need an answer that casts doubt on the conclusion — this pushes in the same direction as the conclusion.

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