Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 2015 LSAT
From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10 percent, after adjustments for infl...
on July 9 at 07:54PM
Can someone explain this please?
on July 13 at 05:06AM
@mjenei Let's go over the passage. From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10 percent, after adjustments for inflation. Opponents of the political party that ruled during this time claim that this was due to mismanagement of the economy by the party. Which of the following, if true, counters the opponents' explanation EXCEPT?
This is an except question, meaning we are looking for an answer choice that would SUPPORT/ STRENGTHEN or HAVE NO IMPACT on the argument that the average family income decreased due to mismanagement of the economy by the ruling party as opposed to WEAKEN it.
(A) This has no impact on the argument either way, it does not matter if there had been a rise in income in 1996, we are only interested in the trend from 1996 to 2004; This is the correct answer.
(B) The key phrase here is for "non economic reasons," so if family income went down due to noneconomic reasons, this fact weakens the mismanagement of the economy argument;
(C) This choice is similar to B, international events beyond the control of the ruling party had a negative impacts on family income, this fact again weakens the mismanagement of the economy argument;
(D) Same logic applies here, non economic factors contributed to decrease in family incomes;
(E) This answer choice suggests that the prior ruling party mismanaged the economy not the one that ruled during 1996 to 2004.
Let me know it this is helpful.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.