September 1998 LSAT Section 3 Question 24

Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual...

ns120496 on November 22, 2021

Wouldn't (E) actually strengthen?

The argument states that individuals who buy cars are spending more money in relation to income. Wouldn't answer choice (E) actually strengthen this argument, since if people have to pay more for a certain good in proportion to their average income, the proportion of sales would more likely decrease than increase? Also, this argument states nothing that directly supports the decrease of the overall quantity of sold goods.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Jay-Etter on January 23, 2022

This is a tricky argument so let's start by breaking it down really carefully
Conclusion: individuals who buy new cars spend on average a larger amount relative to their incomes than their counterparts 25 year ago.
Why? The average price paid has increased relative to average individual income.

There are a few potential problems with this argument. Foremost would be that our conclusion concerns individuals buying new cars, whereas our evidence just concerns the average price paid for new cars. What if a bunch of rich companies like Amazon are buying Tesla's for all of their executive employees, for example? It'll drive up the average price paid for new cars, but it's not actually changing how much the individuals who buy new cars are spending on average.

Answer option E highlights this exact problem. If sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of new car sales than they did 25 years ago, then somewhere else needed to make up the difference, and increase in proportion as compared to 25 years ago. But if that's the case, then it could be the section that has the increased proportion (say, again, business buying cars for employees) that is actually driving up the average price of the cars without it affecting how much the average individual is actually paying. Therefore, E weakens because it provides an alternative explanation - it's not that the individuals are paying more, it's that some other group who buys new cars is paying more.

Hope this helps, feel free to follow up with further questions!