PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 23
Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as(68 more words not shown)
The dialogue most strongly supports(16 more words not shown)
- Awhat definition of(8 more words not shown)
- Bwhether it is(16 more words not shown)
- Cwhether a person(9 more words not shown)
- Dwhether the number(16 more words not shown)
- Ewhether unemployment levels(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why define full employment by what happens to inflation? That would be my first question for Constance. The subjects are related, but Constance still needs to explain why the point at which inflation rises gives the right meaning of full employment.
Brigita raises a different objection: the workplace has changed since the traditional definition was developed. More people juggle temporary assignments or part-time jobs without benefits. Imagine someone relying on several gig jobs, such as delivery work. Being counted as employed would not tell us whether that person has stable work or benefits. Brigita thinks those changes undermine calling a 5 percent unemployment rate full employment today.
What we’re looking for
So their disagreement is about the definition's present applicability. Constance endorses the traditional 5 percent measure; Brigita rejects it under current conditions. Brigita need not say the definition was always wrong, and neither speaker has to be proposing an ideal unemployment policy for that disagreement to exist.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
“Contemporary” means current or modern. Constance says the traditional definition is correct; Brigita says that, with today's temporary work, part-time work, and reduced benefits, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment. They disagree about which definition is appropriate under current economic conditions.
- B
This asks what policy would be best overall. Constance mentions inflation below 5 percent, but that alone does not establish an all-things-considered judgment about permitting lower unemployment. Brigita does not offer that judgment either. Their explicit dispute concerns a definition.
- C
Brigita raises concerns about part-time work, but Constance says nothing about how an individual part-time worker should be classified. We cannot supply Constance's position on that separate question simply from an endorsement of the overall 5 percent definition.
- D
Brigita describes an increase in part-time and temporary work. Constance does not deny that change. Constance could accept the historical facts while still defending the traditional definition, so the statements do not establish disagreement on D.
- E
Constance discusses unemployment below 5 percent, whereas E asks about levels above it. Brigita does not discuss inflation at all. There is no stated pair of opposing views on this proposed causal relationship.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.