LSAT 148 | Section 2 | Reading Comprehension: Q13

RC Question 13 Explanation

DISCUSSION: This is an interesting question. For me, the right answer was obvious, but….when I went to explain the question, I became less and less sure what it was asking.

I think the analysis referenced in this question is the final paragraph. There, the authors discuss several factors that helped migrants, in lines 41-57:

1. Letters sent home were read by dozens of migrants
2. Returning migrants transported new migrants back North after visits.
3. Migrant communities eased culture shock, and helped with housing, food and credit.

This section seems fairly self explanatory. But, line 41 gives some clarity about what this question is asking: this analysis is just what the author found, in empirical studies. This doesn’t necessarily give us a full picture of what actually happened. The past is necessarily hazy, and studies can be wrong. More supporting evidence is always useful.

So, what this question is asking us to do is to provide additional support that helps show that this view of the past based on empirical studies is actually what happened.

___________

1. The authors’ theory is that previous migrants provided labor market information. This answer  weakens the authors’ argument by showing that new migrants had a harder time finding jobs despite better information.
2. CORRECT. This works. In the analysis, there were three ways the authors thought that former migrants helped new ones: letters, transport and cultural support in new places. All three of those would be most likely to occur between people from a similar geographic area, especially back in 1915-1930 or so, before computers, etc. Basically, this answer eliminates the alternate possibility that African-Americans were moving north without assistance from prior migrants. If people just moved north alone, you might expect them to migrate randomly and disperse across cities. If, instead people were largely clustering based on the cities they were originally from, then that suggests earlier migrants were indeed helping new migrants. 
3. This weakens the argument. The authors’ idea was that information from past migrants would lower the costs of migrating. If housing costs fluctuate widely, however, then past information is of less use.
4. This weakens the authors’ argument. Their idea was that lowered migration costs were the reason for continued migration. This answer gives an alternate explanation: heavier and heavier recruitment efforts convinced people to migrate.
5. The authors are only talking about 1915-1960. We have no information about later time periods. So, trends later in the 20th century have no impact on the authors’ theory.