#22 - From 1996 to 2004, the average family income

[Henry Z]

Hi Henry!

When we look at answer choice (E), we can see that if the ruling party didn't come to power until 1996, then policies enacted at any point prior to 1996 were not enacted by the ruling party from 1996-2004! So, to answer your first point, it doesn't matter if the policies were enacted in 1900 or 1970, since no matter what, those policies weren't enacted by the party in question.

To your second point, we could certainly say that policies prior to 1996 may be 'mismanagement' of the economy, but not by the ruling party the opponents are referring to. So, answer choice (E) does weaken the opponents' claim by shifting the blame from the party from 1996-2004 to another party entirely!

I hope this helps!
-Kate

Thanks for your reply, Kate. I can see why (A) is correct. But I'm still confused about how (E) "directly counters" the opponents' explanation. To me, it's like when someone today criticizes the White House for their economic mismanagement, the White House replies:"The biggest economic mismanagement was during the Great Depression!" That's a bad counter-argument.

To clarify, my first point is meant to point out that (E) only says "before" 1996, but doesn't specify how long ago. If the policies and the consequent decreases were a long time and multiple administrations ago, say in 1900, then those things are minimally irrelevant [*] by 1995. It could well be a booming economy when the party took over in 1996. So I don't think the point is whether the ruling party themselves enacted the bad policies, but whether those policies still have consequences when the party came to power. To make (E) a weakener (and thus a wrong answer), we have to assume that those policies are recent enough, like in 1995. I don't see how we're allowed to make such an assumption.

My second point is that just because another party mismanaged, it doesn't mean the ruling party from 1994 to 2004 didn't mismanage. I can't see how by pointing out there was a mismanagement prior to 1996, (E) just shifts "the blame from the party from 1996-2004 to another party entirely!" Isn't this kind of whataboutism a classic flaw in LSAT? Why should we see it as a legit weakener here?

minimally relevant*

[Adam Tyson]

The opposing position here is that the drop in average income was entirely the ruling party's fault. They didn't use the word "entirely," but that's the clear implication of their assertion. Answer E says that it was mostly someone else's fault. That's a pretty direct counter! It's not a case of "but other people also did something bad," which is the whataboutism you mentioned. This is "no, it was not due to their mismanagement, it was due to something else that was outside their control."

[ashutosh_73]

Hi, I'm not sure whether i understood (B) correctly. Below is my understanding of (B). Is it correct?

For noneconomic reasons: FEWER families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning.
From above, can we conclude that MORE & MORE families had SAME OR LESS incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning?

If yes, then we can safely say that overall average will lower in 2004 than in 1996. Hence weakens.

I am sure, this is what (B) meant!!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ashutosh_73!

I'm not entirely sure I followed your reasoning, but it sounds like it got you to the right end point: (B) weakens the opponents' explanation. Since this is a weakens/except question, we can therefore eliminate that answer choice.

To unpack (B) a bit more, what it seems to do is cabin itself off entirely from the economy ("for noneconomic reasons"). Fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the mentioned period of time, and this was because of reasons other than the economy. This thus weakens the conclusion that it was specifically mismanagement of the economy by a given political party that accounted for the decrease in average family income.

[99bengardner@gmail.com]

I considered (A) to possibly be saying "there was a large spike in 1996", which would counter the opponents' argument of mismanagement, as a return to normal salaries would show a decrease from the 1996 spike. The counter would be that the party in power managed the economy normally, and that only the 1996 anomaly makes it seem as though there was a trend of economic decline.

[Dana D]

Hey 99ben,

The stimulus measures income from 1996 to 2004, almost a decade long period, and there was an overall 10% decrease in family income. If there was a spike in 1996, that might actually strengthen the opponent's point, because even with that isolated rise, income the rest of the time period was low enough to result in an average 10% decrease in income - not good! Also - be careful with your assumptions here. We don't know that after the 1996 rise the income returned to 'normal' - they might have hit all time lows. Either way, offering the details of income for one year out of the multi-year average will not weaken the opponent's argument, which is why answer choice (A) is the correct answer.

Hope that helps!

[99bengardner@gmail.com]

Hi Dana,

offering the details of income for one year out of the multi-year average will not weaken the opponent's argument

Here's how I understand "From 1996 to 2004, the average family income decreased by 10 percent," because I think the difference is there.

To measure the % increase or decrease from 1996 to 2004, we would take the 1996 income and the 2004 income and subtract and divide those to get the percentage increase or decrease. Say 1996 income was $100 and 2004 was $90: we would say (90-100)/100 = -0.1, meaning a 10% decrease. The calculation involves only those two years 1996 and 2004.

What makes (A) a direct counter is that if we had a rise in family income in 1996, maybe 1996 income was instead $500, our formula would be (90-500)/500 = -0.82, an 82% decrease. So we can see that, irrespective of any other year's income averages, the increase in 1996 makes a great deal of difference on how large that decrease is.

For example, were all years 1990-2010 to have a $100 average and there were a temporary 1996 rise to ~$110, we would have a "10% decrease in average family income from 1996 to 2004." Similarly, the opponents could be measuring 2004 performance against the 1996 peak of a trendline disingenuously.

[Dana D]

Hey 99ben,

I hadn't read the from 1996 - 2004 that way, but even considering your points the flaws with answer choice (A) remain. The "decrease" between 1996 and 2004 very well might be misleading based on a huge increase in 1996, but no matter how big or small the decrease is that is creating a 10% decrease overall, we are concerned with the cause of the decrease - no matter the size.

The opponent says the decrease is caused by mismangement of the economy, so we need an answer choice that presents an alternative cause in the decrease other than economic mismangement. Arguing about the size of the decrease doesn't weaken the argument - does that make sense?

Your line of thinking will serve you well in other types of questions like numbers and percentages, where the test can try and use data to mislead you, but here we want to stay focused on the reasoning the author is using to reach their conclusion and attack that reasoning.

Hope that helps!