PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

perry24
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:31 am

PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby perry24 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:54 am

How come the answer is E? I got this one correct because A to D did not look right, but I am not sold on E. If there are less individuals buying cars, the AVERAGE that they spend compared to their incomes could still be higher, right?

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:58 am

POST THE QUESTION!

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12418
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby gdane » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:06 am

The argument that youre attacking is the belief that individulas that buy new cars today spend more than their counterparts did 25 years ago. Attack that! What would weaken that? E does because if the sales of new cars to individuals is less in proportion than it was 25 years ago, people may not be paying as much as they did 25 years ago. Understand? Or not...

deminion
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby deminion » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:10 am

To make (E) sound even better I thought about how a couple could now split the costs of a car so their per individual contribution for this new vehicle would be less now.

The LSAT loves to make simple things sound more complicated...but our job is to make it understandable for dumb people like myself.

perry24
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:31 am

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby perry24 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:10 am

deminion, now that you mention it I think that's exactly how the LSAT wanted us to think that problem...

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12418
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby gdane » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:53 am

deminion wrote:To make (E) sound even better I thought about how a couple could now split the costs of a car so their per individual contribution for this new vehicle would be less now.

The LSAT loves to make simple things sound more complicated...but our job is to make it understandable for dumb people like myself.


Uh dont confuse yourself. This explanation works in theory for this question, but this line of thinking will hurt you in future questions. E's not talking about "other" individuals in a household. It's talking about individuals in the singular sense. E's not assuming that couples are splitting the cost of a new car and hence thats why they're paying less now than their counterparts 25 years ago. Keep the answers simple.

perry24
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:31 am

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby perry24 » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:58 pm

But I still don't see how it makes sense otherwise. If the SALES (presuming it means number of cars sold) to individuals is lower, I don't see how it would affect the AVERAGE of what each individual that is buying a car is paying. I mean, the average could still be greater even if there are less individuals buying, right?

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12418
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: PT 26 Section 3 Question 24

Postby gdane » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:00 pm

Its one question. All that matters is that you understand why the answer is correct. It seems like you have that down. No need to further confuse yourself.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests