LR Question 22 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: From 1996 to 2004, the average family income…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception
CONCLUSION: Opponents say the 10% decline in average family income is the political party’s fault.
REASONING: No reasoning is given.
ANALYSIS: There was a 10% inflation-adjusted decline in family income from 1996-2004.
No reasoning is given. And this is an “exception” question, so there are many ways to weaken the opposition’s claim. Just look at the answers with an open mind.
___________
- CORRECT. This isn’s significant. It’s probable there were ups and downs in individual years. The main point is that over the whole period from 1996-2004, incomes fells 10%.
- This suggests the decline isn’t the party’s fault or even a problem. For instance, maybe some families decided to spend more time traveling or taking care of their children. This leads to less income, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
- This shows the party wasn’t responsible. The decline was due to international trouble.
- This suggests the decline is due to demographic change, not any bad policy.
- This shows the causes of the decline occurred before the party took power.
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.
For (E) to weaken, it requires the assumption that at least some effects of the policies enacted by the ruling party before 1996 somewhat carried over to past 1996. This is a reasonable assumption to make right?
That’s right — it’s saying that the biggest decreases in family income weren’t the result of the policies of the party that came to power in 1996.
Hi,
Could you please explain how E is within the scope of the argument? I eliminated E because it said “the biggest decreases…” and I noted that the stimulus discussed the average family income. I understand that the biggest decreases will of course impact the average – but if you take this answer at it’s weakest, we could just be talking about a few families (not the majority of families) and/or 11% of their income…
Thanks!
It’s a common sense assumption that when (E) says “family income” it’s referring to average family income. The subject matter is economics/political economics, so it’s safe to say the author is referring to the country as a whole. If they were referring to the biggest increases in the incomes of individual families, then that fact would be specified.
(E) tells us that before this party took power, there were even greater decreases in average family income, giving us even more reason to believe that the party in power isn’t entirely responsible for the overall decline in family income in the past 10 years.
I interpreted A as having the potential to undermine the arguments of the opponents. Maybe this is my lack of economic theory showing, but I thought that maybe the 10% decrease over that period was just a normalization/stabilization reaction after family income shot up for some reason in 1996, rather than a result of mismanagement by the political party in question.
That’s not something we can assume based on the information we’re provided in the stimulus or answer choice, or based on a common sense understanding of economics. To posit that a 10% increase in family income would necessarily lead to a normalization/stabilization reaction is going beyond the scope of what we’re given.
Could you explain why D is wrong? It seems extremely weak. If the average age fell during most years in the past several decades, then it’s possible that from 1950-1995 the average age fell, and from 96-04 it went up. Given that this is possible, how do we know that there was a demographic shift during the period in question?
That’s possible — but remember, we’re looking for the best of five answers. When we pit (D) against (A), (D) could potentially directly counter the argument of the opponents. We could make the kind of point you’re making against (D) against every one of the incorrect answers, but, unlike (A), they all also have the potential to undermine the argument of the opponents.
(A) just says that there had been a rise in family income in 1996–that tells us nothing, since we’re looking at the entire period between 1996 and 2004.