Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S4 · Q1 Editorial: Clearly, during the past

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

Editorial: Clearly, during the past two years, the unemployment situation in our city has been improving.

Conclusion (Clearly)

During the past two years, the unemployment situation in our city has been improving.

Evidence

Studies show that the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has steadily decreased during that period.

Evaluate

The author is looking at a statistical change and offering a causal interpretation of what it means in her conclusion, so we can use our Explain Curious Fact mindset.

Curious Fact ... why is it that the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has steadily decreased during the past two years?

Author's Explanation ... unemployment is improving (i.e. those people found jobs and so they are no longer counted among the unemployed).

When Flaw questions intersect with Explain Curious Fact arguments, we primarily want to think about Alternate Explanations for the curious fact.

How else could we explain that the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has gone down?

It's possible that they just stopped actively looking for jobs. There are two ways out of being counted among the unemployed: - you get a job, or - you stop looking for a job

U.S. labor statistics work this way (as do most countries). There's a category of workers called Discouraged Workers who don't have jobs, but aren't counted among the unemployed, because discouraged workers aren't actively seeking employment.

We could also argue that,

Unemployment is expressed as a percentage. We say stuff like "Unemployment is at 6%". It's possible that the number of unemployed people looking for jobs went down, even though the unemployment figure stayed the same or went up.

For example, 2 years ago: 500 unemployed / 10,000 workers total / 5% unemployment

Now: 400 unemployed / 8,000 workers total / 5% unemployment

In a scenario were the total workforce also shrunk, you could have the number of unemployed people decrease, even though the unemployment situation is still the same (or worse).

Goal

Most likely, they're testing us on an Alternate Explanation for that changing statistic. Look for an answer saying the author fails to consider alternate explanations of why the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has gone down (such as or "a pandemic killed off 20% of them").

The editorial's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

presumes, without providing justification, that
Out of Scope: responsible
When a Flaw answer begins with presumes / takes for granted, then we treat the idea that follows like Necessary Assumption. Did the author have to assume that the government was partly responsible for the improvement in employment? Nope. If we negate this and say, "Hey, author -- the government isn't responsible at all for the improvement in the employment situation", that wouldn't hurt the author. She'd say, "Cool, I never said anything about the government. I just said the unemployment situation has improved".
0% picked this
relies on data from a
Bad Conclusion Match
This answer accuses the conclusion (inference) of being about a general trend, but the conclusion is only about the 2 year period for which we have data. We have data about the last 2 years. The conclusion is only making a claim about what happened "during that period".
3% picked this
Correct
fails to take into account
Why this is right
When a Flaw answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, then we treat the idea that follows like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author -- a bunch of unemployed workers who still want a job just stopped looking for jobs." Yes, because that provides an Alternate Explanation for why the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has decreased. The author is assuming that if that number went down, it's because a bunch of those people got jobs (hence, "the unemployment situation is improving"). This answer is posing the objection that maybe the number went down because a bunch of those people just gave up looking for jobs.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
95% picked this
fails to take into account
Trap
Not an Objection Out of Scope: govt. / high-paying When a Flaw answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, then we treat the idea that follows like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author -- when the government makes an effort to reduce unemployment, it doesn't necessarily create more high-paying jobs"? No, because the argument wasn't talking about the government or about the level of pay.
0% picked this
ignores other economic indicators, which
Out of Scope: other indicators
Other economic indicators are irrelevant, since the author's conclusion is only about unemployment. If she had looked at shrinking unemployment numbers and concluded, "Hence, the economy is improving", then we could complain that there are other aspects of the economy that need to be considered. But to judge the truth value of her conclusion about "unemployment", we only need to look at unemployment.
1% 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