PrepTest 114

Incorrect. This answer establishes that people were really broke 30 years ago! Even so, the argument doesn't require this to be true to work. The argument needs people's lack of foreign travel to be related to money. Even if people could just barely not afford that travel, the argument can still work—they don't need that travel to be very, very far out of reach.

Incorrect. This answer is about travel to Britain, not travel from Britain, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that the same percentage of people took vacations 30 years ago. It could have been the case that they couldn't afford vacations abroad and they couldn't afford to take time off work.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background - Travel abroad has always been expensive
Phenomenon - A larger percentage of British people today vacation abroad compared to 30 years ago
Explanation - British people have more money for vacation today

Answer Anticipation:
This argument brings up a phenomenon—a growth in the percentage of British people who vacation abroad. It then concludes an explanation for this—that British people have more money for vacations today, since travel abroad is expensive.

Whenever an argument concludes an explanation for a phenomenon, always consider alternatives. Here, there are any number of reasons unrelated to money for the shift in vacationing habits. Maybe travel abroad was much slower 30 years ago, and people didn't want to spend vacation days en route to their destination. Or there was a successful marketing campaign for domestic vacations 30 years ago. Maybe other areas nearby weren't great vacation destinations until recently!

The argument assumes that the only reason people wouldn't vacation abroad is that they couldn't afford it, so let's find an answer establishing that, or ruling out an alternative reason (as all other alternatives need to be ruled out for this one to be correct).

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that it was money that kept people from vacationing 30 years ago, establishing the author's explanation as the correct one. If people 30 years ago still wouldn't have traveled abroad even if they could afford it, then there's no reason to believe that the increase in that travel is because of an increase in available money, killing the argument. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT can get clever with how they phrase correct answers. Here, (D) doesn't really match with the way we phrased our anticipation, but it conveys the same idea. Use your anticipation to determine the scope of the answer, and then dig in and fully consider anything that matches that scope.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss people being wealthier, just having more money for vacation. That may be because their other expenses went down, not because their overall wealth went up. This answer is therefore not necessary for the argument to hold.