LR Question 26 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The number of applications for admission reported by North American…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception
CONCLUSION: The number of North Americans interested in art history as a career has declined in the last four years.
REASONING: The number of applicants to art history Ph.D. programs has declined over the past four years.
ANALYSIS: Be sure you know exactly what the conclusion says. Otherwise answers D and E will be tricky to eliminate. The conclusion is about the attractiveness of careers in art history, not the attractiveness of art history Ph.D. programs. And it is specific to North Americans.
___________
- This provides an alternate explanation for the smaller numbers.
- CORRECT. Who cares how old they are? The main point is that there are fewer applicants.
- If we can’t trust the data, we can’t make a conclusion.
- Students could therefore be interested in an art history career, and see a Ph.D. as a waste of time.
- The conclusion is specifically about North Americans. If this answer choice were true, then the number of North American applicants could have stayed constant: perhaps only applications from elsewhere have declined.
Recap: The question begins with “The number of applications for admission reported by North American”. It is a Weaken question. Learn more about LSAT Weaken questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
I couldn’t disagree more. The question does specify that interest in the career has gone down, but it further specifies the group from which interest in the career has diminished — recent graduates of American colleges and universities. Answer B only states that their age has gone up. So what? That could mean by one month. It could also correlate to the average age of the average recent graduate going up. It is no indication whatsoever that there’s a decrease in interest in either recent grads or anyone else. Only that their age has increased by an unspecified amount. BALDERDASH! Answer E, on the other hand, does in fact strengthen the argument. For if FOREIGN applicants had decreased significantly, from that we could logically infer that the entire decrease was possibly due to SIGNIFICANTLY lower applicants from FOREIGN GRADUATES. The question, again, specifies that the interest has gone down among recent AMERICAN GRADUATES. I may write the LSAC a letter about this question. It should be removed from all study materials. E is in fact the better answer. How can no one else see this? Pardon my tone…this question and answer are, to me, clearly wrong.
Totally understand your frustration, but I think there are some inconsistencies in your reasoning. First, this is a Weaken – Except question. This means that four answers will weaken the stimulus and one will EITHER strengthen OR do nothing. So your basis for eliminating B is actually why it’s correct (it doesn’t impact the argument).
B says the average age of applicants has gone up, but we don’t know how age relates to anything. It doesn’t relate to the argument or do anything to impact it, which is exactly why it’s correct.
E doesn’t strengthen the argument, it weakens it. The stimulus says the following:
1. The number of applications for North American PHD programs has declined in the last 4 years. They don’t specify applications from who, just overall applications. ¨
2. The cause must be less interest among NORTH AMERICAN college and university grads.
But if the drop in applications is driven by fewer foreign applicants like E says, then it undermines the idea that interest among recent North American grads is the cause. The decline in applications is not from North American grads, it’s from foreign students. Since it provides an alternate reasoning/cause to the one in the stimulus, it weakens the stimulus.
Let me know if you still have questions. Hope that helps!