Logical Reasoning

PT16 · S2 · Q14 In 1980, Country A had a per capita

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

In 1980, Country A had a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) that was $5,000 higher than that of the European Economic Community.

Conclusion

The average standard of living must have risen in A from 1980 to 1990.

Evidence (Since)

Rising GDP indicates a rising average standard of living.

and, Country A went from being $5k higher than Europe in 1980 to $6k higher than Europe in 1990.

Evaluate

For the author to prove average standard of living went up, he needs to establish that from 1980 to 1990, per capita GDP in country A was rising.

But all he established was that country A's GDP advantage over European countries widened from 1980 to 1990.

If you went from making 10 grand more than your best friend to making 15 grand more than your best friend, does that mean you are making 5 grand more or your best friend is making 5 grand less (or any combination of both of you changing that has that net result).

This is the classic Relative vs. Absolute, or % vs. # distinction that LSAT likes to test.

The author assumes that because Country A's GDP is rising in relation to the European countries, that it is rising in absolute terms.

Goal

The author fundamentally is assuming that Country A's per capita GDP is rising. She's assuming that one indication of that is the widening advantage Country A has over Europe, when it comes to GDP.

Since it would weaken the argument if we were to say, , the argument has to assume that Europe does not have declining GDP.

14.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Between 1980 and 1990, Country

    Too Strong: Same

    "Same" is like "Identical". The author doesn't need to believe this incredibly improbable idea that Country A and the EEC increased by exactly the same increase in population.

    20% picked this

  2. Between 1980 and 1990, the

    Opposite: standard of living fell

    The author is failing to consider that the EEC's per capita GDP may have gone down. The author is assuming that EEC's per capita GDP is the same or higher than before. So it wouldn't make sense, given that, for the author to think that standard of living is falling, while GDP is the same or higher.

    6% picked this

  3. Some member countries of the

    Irrelevant Comparison

    There's no reason the author needs to believe that at least one European country had higher standard of living that Country A. If we negate this, we're saying, "Country A's standard of living was as high or higher than that of all European countries". Does that hurt the argument? Not really, it sounds more like it goes with the conclusion.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    The per capita GDP of

    Why this is right

    Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and we see an answer choice ruling-out an idea with "not / no", we should slow up and negate it. Tons of correct answers (we call them Defender answers) look like this. If we say that per capita GDP of Europe was more than $1k lower in 1990, that means that the gap between Country A and Europe is widening because Europe is slipping, not because Country A is surging. Thus we have no reason to think that Country A's GDP is actually rising. The author needs us to believe that A's GDP is rising in order to get to her conclusion about standard of living. So we can see that negating this answer badly weakens the argument by offering an alternate explanation for the "$5k higher to $6k higher" curious fact.

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

    62% picked this

  5. In 1990, no member country

    Too Strong: no member

    This is very harsh. No one was higher than A? Country A had to have the highest GDP? The author wasn't assuming anything that strong. But people may find this tempting since we're told that Country A's GDP is $5-6k higher than Europe's. However, that latter number is an average, not a total. "Per capita" means per person. Say that the entire European community was just Germany and Switzerland. Germany might have a $50k / person GDP while Switzerland has $10k / person GDP. That would mean that this European community has a per capita GDP somewhere around $30k. For Country A to be higher than the per capita GDP of the European Community, we're saying that if you added up total value produced and divided by number of citizens, the number would be $5-6k higher for Country A than for Europe. But the European countries are all being averaged together for that latter number. It's highly possible some outlier nations have way higher GDP than the European average (and thus higher than Country A).

    7% 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