Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q22 From 1996 to 2004, the average

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

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10 percent, after adjustments for inflation.

Curious Fact

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10% (adjusted for inflation).

Opponents' Explanation

This is because the ruling party during that time mismanaged the economy.

Goal

We're supposed to find and eliminate four answers that either point to an Alternate Explanation for why average family income decreased by 10% during that 8 year span, or that make it seem less plausible that the ruling party mismanaged the economy during that time span.

22.

Each of the following rejoinders, if true, directly counters the opponents' explanation of the decrease in average family income EXCEPT:

  1. Correct

    There had been a rise

    Why this is right

    It sounds like this answer is saying 1996's average income was higher than 1995's. But our job here is to explain why 2004's average income was lower than 1996's. So it doesn't seem like this answer is addressing what we're here to examine. The answer might be tempting if someone was thinking, "If 1996 was atypically high, then 2004 being 10% lower could just be ordinary regression to the mean". In other words, suppose your flower business usually brings in $5000 per month, but then for whatever reason in July, you brought in $7000. No one would be shocked or surprised if in Aug, Sept, Oct, etc. it reverted to $5000 per month. We wouldn't feel the need to blame anyone for the fact that it went from $7k in July down to $5k in October, because that was a return to normalcy. But that's a tough concept to use here, since we don't know that 1995 was "average" and 1996 was an "aberration".

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

    64% picked this

  2. For noneconomic reasons, fewer families

    Alternate Explanation

    This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government mismanaged the economy; it was because for noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes in 2004 than in 1996. (for example, more couples decided that one of them would stay home with the kids)"

    9% picked this

  3. During the period, international events

    Alternate Explanation

    This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government mismanaged the economy; it was because international events beyond the government's control, had a negative effect on family incomes."

    5% picked this

  4. Younger wage earners usually earn

    Alternate Explanation

    This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government mismanaged the economy; it was lower because average family income has been declining for decades. There has been a trend where the average age of household wage earners is younger than before, and younger people tend to make less money." In other words, this isn't the fault of anyone mismanaging the economy. This is just a demographic shift. If the average age of wage earners in the family is 40 years old, then you'll be dealing with "career income / higher salaries". If the average age drops to 30 years old, then more family income is comprised of "entry level positions / minimum wage jobs".

    11% picked this

  5. The biggest decreases in family

    Alternate Explanation

    This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government in power at the time mismanaged the economy; it was because the previous government mismanaged the economy. The policies of the government pre-1996 are what created the biggest decreases in family income during the 1996 - 2004 period."

    11% 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