LSAT 8 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: The government office was more lax in enforcing drug promotion laws during 1976-1980 than during 1971-1975.

REASONING: The agency issued an average of 60 citations for serious violations during the earlier period yet issued an average of only 5 violations in the later period.

ANALYSIS: This sound like a damning argument. But how many actual violations occurred in each period? Citations should be in response to violations. It’s possible the agency acted appropriately in the later period: there may simply have been fewer violations.

___________

1. CORRECT. Yes. If there were fewer violations then there would have been no cause to keep issuing a high number of citations.
2. The conclusion is strictly related to serious violations.
3. It doesn’t matter why the enforcement standard changed. The conclusion is simply that it did change.
4. The argument is actually assuming that the government office should issue more than 5 citations.
5. The argument is only making a comparison between the two periods mentioned. Earlier period aren’t relevant since the argument is only claiming that the later period was less strict as compared to the earlier period.

Recap: The question begins with “Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Necessary questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.