PrepTest 143, Section 3, Question 22
From 1996 to 2004, the average family income(35 more words not shown)
Each of the following rejoinders,(15 more words not shown)
- AThere had been(11 more words not shown)
- BFor noneconomic reasons,(15 more words not shown)
- CDuring the period,(19 more words not shown)
- DYounger wage earners(23 more words not shown)
- EThe biggest decreases(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The party was in power when family incomes fell. That doesn't establish that the party caused the fall.
We know average family income lost purchasing power: the 10 percent decrease is after adjusting for inflation. Families could even receive more dollars while those dollars buy less. What we still need to explain is why the inflation-adjusted average declined.
Perhaps a worldwide downturn hurt this country too. Perhaps a war or severe weather disrupted earnings. Those are possible alternatives, not facts we're adding. I could believe the party mismanaged the economy, but being in office during a decline doesn't settle the cause.
What we’re looking for
Watch the “EXCEPT.” Four answers directly counter the opponents' explanation, and we want the one that doesn't. I'd expect the four to identify other reasons incomes fell or other reasons the governing party isn't responsible for the change.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A rise in 1996 doesn't explain the decrease from 1996 to 2004. Income could rise at the beginning of the period and then fall because of poor management during the following years. A gives a different piece of the timeline without supplying a competing explanation for the decline we're discussing. That makes it the exception.
- B
Fewer families had multiple incomes for noneconomic reasons. Imagine some households moving from two wage earners to one because of a change in family preferences. Average family income could then fall even without worse earnings for each worker or economic mismanagement. This supplies another explanation, so it is not the exception.
- C
This fits the outside-event possibility. International events harmed family incomes and were beyond the government's control. That directly challenges assigning the decline to the ruling party's management, even if it doesn't establish that the party did everything well.
- D
The mix of earners became younger, and younger earners usually earn less. An average can fall because more of the people in it come from a lower-earning group. That offers a demographic explanation for lower family income instead of blaming the government's economic management.
- E
The largest decreases resulted from policies enacted before this party took power. Those delayed effects give us a reason to distinguish what happened during the party's tenure from what its own management caused. E directly counters the opponents' attribution, so it cannot be our exception.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.