LR Question 18 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
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.
The argument has to assume that saving in a bank is the only alternative to spending.
___________
- CORRECT. This is one necessary assumption among many. Paying off debts faster is an alternative both to spending and to saving in a bank. The argument is assuming that workers didn’t choose this option.
- Actually, the argument is assuming that workers aren’t helping their relatives. Giving money to relatives is an alternative to spending or to saving in a bank.
- Actually, the argument would be stronger if the new jobs paid just as well. If workers have less money, then that is an alternate explanation for why they’re not saving more.
- It’s not clear whether pessimism would make people save more (because they won’t get extra money in the future) or save less (because they have given up all hope).
Since we don’t know what effect pessimism has, it’s impossible to evaluate this answer. - Why would accurate statistics weaken the argument? They might prove the author correct.
Recap: The question begins with “The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
How does the argument assume that workers aren’t helping their relatives?
The stimulus treats the situation as a dichotomy: either (1) people are spending money on new purchases, or (2) they’re putting it into savings. Since there’s no unusual increase ins savings, it concludes that they are still spending at the same rate.
For that to work, the argument has to rule out ALL other significant uses of money. Paying down debt, giving money to relatives, stuffing cash in your mattress, and so on would all be alternative destinations for money that aren’t reflected in either new purchases or savings balances.
That’s why B can’t be a necessary assumption. B says they’re helping relatives financially. But that introduces an alternative flow of money that breaks the argument’s dichotomy. The argument actually assumes the opposite of B: people AREN’T helping their relatives (because the argument only recognizes two ways of using money: (1) buy new things, or (2) save it).
Whereas A does exactly that: it rules out one alternative use of money. If we negate A, we get: “People ARE paying off debts sooner.” That negation makes the argument fall apart. In that case, people could be making fewer new purchases without increasing their savings, because the money is going toward debt repayment instead. So, since the negation of A breaks the argument, we know that A has to be a necessary assumption.
So the key difference is that A eliminates an alternative use of money and is therefore required, while B affirms an alternative use of money and thus goes against the argument.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.