## PT 58, LR1, Q17

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
lsatextreme

Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am

### PT 58, LR1, Q17

So the correct answer is B, and I understand how if the avg living conditions of L's country declining would explain how L's living conditions were same as the national avg now, but how does that explain that "most residents of L report general dissatisfaction with their living condition"?

Was I supposed to assume that the residents of L were basing their satisfaction according to the avg living conditions of the entire country or something?

zworykin

Posts: 438
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

### Re: PT 58, LR1, Q17

Ten years ago they were below the country's average but still happy. Now they're at the country average but not happy.

What you have to "see" here is that the stimulus doesn't say that the living conditions in area L stayed the same over the 10 years. They could very well have declined.

Say hypothetically that 10 years ago the conditions in area L were at an 8 and the national average was a 9. But now, the national average (which area L now matches, per the stimulus) has dropped to a 4. That would certainly make the residents unhappy, right?

Key words--
In the stimulus: 10 years ago area L's conditions were slightly below the average.
In answer B: In the past 10 years, the average has declined significantly.

lsatextreme

Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am

### Re: PT 58, LR1, Q17

ah thanks for the clarifications. I was too fixated on the fact that it remained the same as the national average and didn't consider how their living conditions could have dropped as well.

MissLucky

Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

### Re: PT 58, LR1, Q17

clearly the answer is (B) here. but i'm having a hard time articulating why (D) is wrong.

The contrapositive of (D) is If residents do NOT perceive their situation as somehow in need of improvement --> living conditions in the area do NOT generally improve. Does the sufficient condition of this logical chain not apply to this situation because all we know is that most residents of L are generally SATISFIED, not that they DO NOT perceive their situation as somehow in need of improvement? Is that correct (to not assume that the two are one in the same - they could be satisfied but still think their area needs improvement, right? or is that contrary to the essential meaning of satisfaction)? And even if we did assume that the two are one in the same, and that these residents fit the sufficient condition of (D)'s contrapositive, all it would explain is that living conditions did not generally improve - but it would not explain why they are dissatisfied now (unless we assume that no improvement in living conditions = dissatisfaction).

is this reasoning for discounting (D) on track? anyone have a simpler, more concise rejection of it?

thanks!!!