LSAT 101 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Workers are still spending as much as before.

REASONING: Workers aren’t putting more money in savings accounts.

ANALYSIS: This is a bad argument. The workers might have put their money in bonds, or stocks, or they might even have stuffed it under their mattresses.

___________

1. CORRECT. It’s true that we would expect people to put money in their savings accounts if they don’t spend it. The argument says that since this didn’t happen, the workers must have spent the money.
2. There aren’t two consequences mentioned, only one: it’s expected that workers would save money.
3. The stimulus didn’t mention anything like this. No one said the workers would be hurt by not spending.
4. Actually, the argument failed to show that there were only two possibilities. They assumed without evidence that workers only spend money or put it in the bank.
5. The conclusion didn’t say it was “likely” that there was no change. It just said there was no change.

Recap: The question begins with “The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Method of Reasoning questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.