LSAT 1 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Some of the most prosperous nations in the world …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The trend of declining savings will continue if the average age of the population continues to rise.

REASONING: Older people have fewer reasons to save than younger people. So as the population gets older, the national savings rate will keep dropping.

ANALYSIS: The stimulus connects rising average age with declining savings rates. It predicts that as populations get older, savings will continue to fall, because older people have fewer reasons to save.

But having fewer reasons doesn’t necessarily mean people actually will save less. What matters is how strong those reasons are. An older person might not be saving for a house, car, or school like younger people, but they might have one or two powerful motivations, like covering medical expenses or leaving a large inheritance. That could still lead them to save a lot.

So the argument doesn’t account for the strength of the reasons and assumes the number of reasons is what determines behavior.

___________

1. This addresses missing information, not the flaw in the argument’s inference. The stimulus doesn’t need to list or rank the younger generation’s reasons.
2. The argument never claims or assumes anything about the possibility or impossibility of a negative savings rate. This is completely out of scope.
3. Pointing out missing data is a common trap answer in flaw questions. An LSAT stimulus rarely relies on statistical data or cites sources, so this is unlikely to be correct in general. Additionally, this argument is based on a conditional statement, not a factual claim. So there’s no need for statistics to support the structure.
4. CORRECT. As stated above, the argument assumes that fewer reasons = less saving, but never considers that the importance of those reasons might outweigh the number. A small number of strong reasons could still drive high saving.
5. This is a technical point that is irrelevant to the argument’s logical flaw. The stimulus uses a standard definition of savings rate (based on after-tax income), but never argues that this is the best or only valid way to define it.