PrepTest 103

[lcid:3510] Prep Test 103 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Over the last 25 Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

Data (past 25 years) Average price paid for new car is higher compared to average individual income
Conclusion - People buying new cars today are paying a larger amount of their income compared to 25 years ago

Answer Anticipation

Don’t start doing math here! It’d be easy to get your head twisted over averages, and relative amounts, and inflation, and etc… Don’t! It’s almost guaranteed that that is a distraction, and the LSAT is trying to get you to go down a rabbit hole that won’t matter.
Instead, let’s compare what the conclusion says to the premise, and see if there’s any gap there.
First, the conclusion talks about the average amount spent. The premises are also about the average spent, so no gap there. Second, the conclusion is about the amount spent relative to income, which is also what the premise is about. The conclusion is about buying new cars, and so is the premise. The timeline? It matches up, both talking about a 25 year period. And, finally, the conclusion is about individuals buying cars...while the premise is about the overall average price paid.
There’s our shift! The premise is about all new car sales, whereas the conclusion is about individual new car sales. If the market has shifted and individual sales make up a different proportion of all new car sales (e.g., there are more companies buying new cars), then that would throw the stats off. Let’s find that as an answer.

Answer choices

  1. A
    There has been a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The premise and conclusion both use individual income as a baseline; this answer would weaken the argument only if it shifted between individual incomes and household incomes.

  2. B
    The number of used Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The premise and conclusion are both about new cars, so the used car market is out of scope. This answer would weaken the argument only if the stimulus shifted between new car sales and used car sales, or total car sales.

  3. C
    Allowing for inflation, average Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The argument didn’t look at absolute numbers, but relative numbers, so inflation was already factored in (as it would affect income and car prices).

  4. D
    During the last 25 Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The stimulus talks about the average price paid per new car, so the total number of sales is immaterial. The conclusion is also about the amount spent per car purchased, not the amount of their income they spent on new cars.

  5. E
    Sales to individuals make Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer addresses the shift we spotted in the argument. The premise was about the average price paid for a new car; the conclusion was about the average price an individual paid for a new car. If the new car market has skewed away from individual sales, that throws the numbers off and calls the logic into question, weakening the conclusion.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion