Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT122 S1 Q13 Explanation

Robin: When a region’s economy

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

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

Robin: When a region’s economy is faltering, many people lose their jobs. As a result, spending on consumer goods declines, leading in turn to more lost jobs and a worsening of the economy. Eventually, the economy becomes so bad that prices collapse; the lower goods, and this higher spending results in economic improvement.

Terry: People cannot increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities, so to economic improvement.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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

The question
13.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines Terry’s objection to

Answer choices

  1. No Impact12% picked this

    Companies hire more workers after the economy starts to improve again, and many newly hired workers

    This states that companies hire more workers after the economy improves, but we need a way to explain how how spending initially increases when prices drop, which then leads to the improvement.

  2. No Impact4% picked this

    Even when economic conditions are worsening, consumers realize that the economy

    This suggests that even during economic decline, consumers anticipate future improvement, which doesn't address how immediate price collapses lead to increased spending despite high unemployment rates.

  3. Correct68% picked this

    Even people who do not lose their jobs spend less in bad economic times and thus have savings available

    Why this is right

    This indicates that those who retain their jobs during economic downturns tend to save money, providing them with savings to spend when prices drop, thus supporting Robin’s argument by explaining how spending might increase despite unemployment. We can say, "you're right Terry. People without jobs can't increase their spending. But people with jobs sure can!"

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

  4. Irrelevant14% picked this

    People who have lost their jobs must continue to buy some basic goods such as food, even

    This mentions continued purchase of essential items by the unemployed, which agrees with Terry’s view that essentials don’t influence spending on non-essentials like flat screens, leaving Robin's argument unsupported.

  5. Irrelevant2% picked this

    The prices of some consumer goods remain stable, even during a

    This discusses stable prices on some goods during a price collapse, not addressing the context of increased spending on reduced-priced items leading to recovery, which is Robin’s focal point.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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