PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 18
The widespread staff reductions in a certain region's(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AIf people in(20 more words not shown)
- BPeople in the(20 more words not shown)
- CIf people in(21 more words not shown)
- DPeople in the(15 more words not shown)
- EThere exist no(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe these people are still employed but making less money. Think about a shop owner whose customers have been laid off. The shop is still open, yet sales have dropped. The owner might have to cut back on purchases just to get by. Why would we expect that to create extra savings?
The author's conclusion needs more than “their savings haven't grown unusually.” That fact is supposed to show that their purchases haven't dropped, but it only works if cutting purchases would leave extra money in those accounts. Our first concern is the money coming in: the author hasn't shown that continued employment means an unchanged income.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for an assumption the argument requires. I'd expect something protecting that link between reduced purchases and increased savings—perhaps ruling out the income drop we just imagined. Keep the problem in view, but let the choices tell us which missing piece they're testing.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This closes a different hole in the same link. Maybe people are buying less and using the difference to pay down debt faster. Skip a $5 coffee and put that $5 toward a student loan: you've reduced new purchases, but the money hasn't accumulated in your savings account.
The author needs to rule out that alternative use of the money before treating unchanged savings as evidence of unchanged purchases. A does that by assuming people aren't accelerating their debt payments. It doesn't say they have no debts or never make ordinary payments. And although our first concern was lower income, an argument can depend on more than one unstated assumption.
- B
Financial help for unemployed relatives could provide another destination for money people stop spending on themselves. That would create a problem for the argument. B says this help commonly happens; it doesn't rule it out. The author doesn't need that claim to be true to conclude purchases are unchanged.
- C
This concerns people who lost their jobs and then found new ones. Our conclusion concerns people who continued to be employed. Lower pay for the first group doesn't establish anything the author needs about purchases and savings in the second group.
- D
Pessimism about future raises isn't a necessary condition for spending to remain unchanged. These people could be optimistic, pessimistic, or unsure. None of those attitudes supplies the missing connection between their current purchases and the amount in savings.
- E
Sales statistics could exist whether or not this argument works. The author happens to use savings information; that doesn't require every other possible source of evidence to be unavailable. And sales across the whole region wouldn't automatically isolate the spending of people who kept their jobs.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.