#21 - The amount of electricity consumed in Millville on

[LSAT2018]

I understand why A is parallel to the stimulus but I would just like to clarify whether there is valid or invalid reasoning here. In stating that A is directly proportional to B, would they be interchangeable, like working either way? So would it be acceptable to say B increased, A would increase.


Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Yes, LSAT2018, if two things are directly proportional then you can say that as either one of them increased, so did the other, and as either of them decreased, so did the other. If you accept the claim of direct proportion, then you can use changes in either one to prove changes in the other. That concept comes up now and then on the test, so it's good to be familiar with it, and also with indirect or inverse proportions, where they move in opposite directions.

[conorrjohnston]

Hi!!

I got this one right, but I wanted to see why D was out. My original reasoning was that D didn't have the *insert numeric quantity* increase portion of the stimulus, and that it redirects the benefits from the subject (students) to another subject (the university seeing new fringe benefits) whereas the stimulus doesn't have this subject redirection. I think D could be valid if it said something to the effect of "Since the number of students at the Athletic Institute is increasing by 20 percent, it follows that students fees will increase". Is this a correct rationale?

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

conorrjohnston,

The change in subject in answer choice (D) is from the number of classes in which a particular student enrolls to the number of students enrolled. It's not shifting from student benefits to institute benefits. But it does have a change of subject which makes this answer incorrect.

Robert Carroll