I just want to know why answer choice A is the correct one. I picked this one, but still want to make sure that I know that my thought process is correct.
#17 - The widespread staff reductions in a certain region’s
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
It's great that you got that one right; it might be more helpful if you told us a bit more about your thought process; that way we can confirm that you got the right answer for exactly the right reason--thanks!
PowerScore Test Preparation
I was thinking along the lines such as if there was not an actual increase than the event did not occur, for example people who are trying to lose weight,
if one the scale they still have the same 150 showing, and exercising someone might say that that there has been no change. However, they might be putting muscle weight and have less fat. Does it make sense?
so because there is no evident consequence, the change did not occur. Because their bank accounts stayed the same the argument assumes that there was economical change. (they might have wanted to spend more and did not).
Your reasoning makes sense to me. One way to see the passage proceeds is by noting the cause-and-effect relationship in it. Answer choice A, as your analogy about weight rightly suggests, is correct because it's correctly describes how the stimulus proceeds, but concluding that because there is no effect, the cause cannot have occurred.
Since you also had a question about #18, is worth noting that one could take this to be a flaw in the argument. Just because their saving accounts are not growing does not guarantee that people with jobs have not diminished their spending. For example, they may be paying off debts accelerated rate, in which case their savings accounts may not grow while their spending may still decrease.
I would just like to clarify the answer here. When it says 'concluding that since an expected consequence of a supposed development did not occur, that development itself did not take place,' the expected consequence refers to decreased spending, and the supposed development refers to the actual causal argument that staff reduction leads to decreased spending?
The expected consequence that did not take place is increased savings, and the development that the author thinks did not take place is reduced spending. In other words, the author assumes that if spending went down, savings would have gone up, and since savings didn't go up, spending must therefore not have gone down.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
6 posts • Page 1 of 1