PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 14
Thirty years ago, the percentage of the British(54 more words not shown)
The argument requires assuming which(4 more words not shown)
- AIf foreign travel(20 more words not shown)
- BIf travel to(16 more words not shown)
- CIf the percentage(26 more words not shown)
- DIf more of(19 more words not shown)
- EIf British people(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Still expensive doesn't mean just as expensive.
Foreign travel might once have been affordable only to the wealthiest people, then become a major but manageable purchase for a much larger group. We could call it expensive in both periods. So the increase in travelers doesn't automatically prove they have more money available; the price might have fallen.
I'd also ask whether people wanted to travel abroad as much thirty years ago. Maybe more people now prefer foreign trips. A change in desire could increase travel even without a change in what people can afford. The author treats money as the explanation without ruling out these alternatives.
What we’re looking for
We need an assumption the argument requires. A good answer may protect the reasoning against one of these concerns without settling every possible explanation. I'd look for something needed to defend the explanation that people have more vacation money, rather than merely spending that money differently or facing different prices.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't require foreign travel to have been unaffordable even at a lower price. Some people might have traveled if it had been cheaper. A makes a strong claim about what would have happened under a different past price, while the argument relies on the contrast between past and current travel. That particular claim isn't needed.
- B
This concerns people traveling to Britain. The argument concerns British people traveling abroad. What foreigners would do if their trips to Britain became cheaper doesn't connect British vacation choices to the amount British people have available to spend.
- C
Fewer foreign vacations don't imply more money spent on domestic ones. People could have taken fewer vacations altogether or spent less on them. The author doesn't need a claim about greater domestic spending to make the argument about money available for vacations now.
- DCorrect
This addresses the concern about willingness to travel. If more people back then had enough money and still wouldn't have gone abroad, the low travel rate wouldn't tell us they lacked the money. D connects additional ability to afford a trip with additional travel.
It doesn't claim every British person wanted to travel, or that preferences never changed. It says more would have done so if more could afford it. That is the connection the argument needs to use past travel behavior as evidence about past financial capacity. It still leaves our separate question about changes in price unanswered.
- E
Greater overall wealth isn't the same as more money available for vacations. E gives a rule connecting the two, but the argument hasn't established the condition that people are now wealthier overall. Its claim is specifically about vacation money, based on travel behavior. The reasoning doesn't require this broader rule: people could have more available for vacations through a change in other expenses or spending priorities, without greater overall wealth.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.