Justify Formula Drill #5

[Blueballoon5%]

Hello! I got the right answer, but I don't understand one line in the answer key.

The line: "the rate of decrease of registered voters did not exceed the rate of increase of voting percentage."

I do not understand the meaning of this line (English problem!). Thanks!!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Blueballoon,

Thanks for your question! This explanation is a bit difficult, and I understand your confusion.

This line simply means that, even if it were true that the number of registered voters did in fact decrease between the elections, the conclusion could still be justified if we knew that a decrease in the number of registered voters was offset by an equal or greater increase in the percentage of registered voters who voted.

In other words, even if the number of registered voters decreased, if more of them are known to have voted, then the conclusion would still be justified.

[jessicamorehead]

For number 5 on page 4-93, I am confused on the answer. I said my justifying statement as "More people registered." But the answer is "The number of registered voters did not decrease from the last election." I'm confused how they got to that. Can someone please explain?

Thank you!!
Jessica

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Jessica,

The good news is your statement would indeed justify this conclusion! Given that...

• there was an increase in the percentage of registered voters who participated in the last election compared to the prior election;

...and that...

• there were more voters registered for the latest election than there had been for the prior election;

...we could correctly conclude that:

• More registered voters voted in the last election than in the priorelection.

However, the answer identified in the book is a statement that is slightly more limited but would be sufficient to justify the conclusion.

Given that "there was not a decrease in the number of registered voters between the two elections" and given that "a greater percentage of registered voters voted in the latest election than did in the prior election," we could conclude that "more registered voters voted in the last election than in the prior election."

Let's illustrate your answer by substituting hypothetical numbers:

• For the prior election, there were 100 voters.
• For the latest election, there were 200 voters.
• 45% of voters voted in the prior election.
• 50% of voters voted in the latest election.
• 45 voters voted in the prior election.
• 100 voters voted in the latest election.
• The conclusion is justified.

Now let's illustrate the book's answer:

• For the prior election, there were 100 voters.
• For the latest election, there were 100 voters.
• 45% of voters voted in the prior election.
• 50% of voters voted in the latest election.
• 45 voters voted in the prior election.
• 50 voters voted in the latest election.
• The conclusion is justified.

Thus, even though the solution the book offers is not as "strong" as yours, it is sufficient to justify the conclusion. In fact, because it is more limited and slightly more challenging to understand, the solution offered in the book is more likely to be analogous to what you might see on the LSAT.

I hope this helps!