Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT21 S3 Q3 Explanation

During 1991 the number of people

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

TopicsParadox

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

During 1991 the number of people in the town of Bayburg who received municipal food assistance doubled, even though the number of people in Bayburg whose incomes for such assistance remained unchanged.

What this question is testing

Paradox

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
3.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in

Answer choices

  1. No Change, No Impact1% picked this

    In 1990 the Bayburg Town Council debated whether or not to alter the eligibility requirements for the food assistance program but ultimately

    This answer doesn't give us a storyline to explain why # of people receiving food assistance has changed, because this answer doesn't provide any change.

  2. No Impact / Tries to Cheat5% picked this

    In 1990 the Bayburg social service department estimated the number of people in Bayburg who might be eligible for the food assistance program and

    It's still not clear from this answer that anything changed. But the only thing it's even hinting at changing would be a story like, "Maybe they estimated a bigger number of people might be eligible, so that's why more people are getting food assistance." But we can't tell that story, since we know that the number of eligible people didn't change.

  3. Tries to Cheat21% picked this

    During 1991 many residents of a nearby city lost their jobs and moved to Bayburg

    This offers a potential storyline of, "Unemployment in a nearby city led to a lot of needy people moving into Bayburg. More people needed food assistance and so more people got it." But, again, this storyline is trying to add eligible people in order to explain why more people received assistance. That's cheating the paradox. We have to work around the constraint that the same number of people are eligible.

  4. No Impact / No Change2% picked this

    During 1991 the number of applicants for food assistance in Bayburg who were rejected on the basis that their incomes were above the maximum

    We need a difference in order to explain this change! This presents us with another sameness. Also, it seems to only be addressing the number of people who would be eligible. Again, that variable isn't moving. The same number of people are eligible. We need to figure out why number of people actually receiving assistance went up.

  5. Correct70% picked this

    During 1991 Bayburg’s program of rent assistance for low-income tenants advertised widely and then informed all applicants about other assistance programs for

    Why this is right

    This offers a potential storyline for how more people could receive assistance, even though the number of eligible people didn't change. Not everyone who is eligible for food assistance automatically receives it. You probably have to fill out some paperwork and enroll yourself in the system. So by advertising widely to low-income tenants about rent assistance, and then informing all applicants about other assistance programs (just as food assistance), we can see how we may have gotten some new people to receive food assistance. Their low incomes have made them eligible for this assistance for years, potentially, but if they didn't know it was a program that was offered, they might not have been capitalizing on it. This is definitely a strange correct answer, in terms of how specific a tangential storyline it gives to get us there, but the other answers didn't discuss any change that would relate to how "previously eligible, but not receiving assistance" people could turn into "still eligible, but now are receiving assistance" people.

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

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