PT 34 section 3 #21 Forum

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:39 pm

Hey so I have a question a about (E). I got a little confused when I saw that overall the amount of income has increased. I thought that would suggest that families spending the same rate as they did thirty years ago would mean that the rate of incomes had in fact increased faster than the food purchase rate??? But is this actually hurting the argument because you're spending the same percentage on food, despite the fact your income has risen?? Would we expect to them spending less of a percentage on food for the argument to be strengthened? I can't really see the connection as well as I would like.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:09 pm

Post removed.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:52 pm

mornincounselor wrote:Okay so the question asks us to "justify the conclusion."

So there must be some gap, or something the author is failing to mention, that would allow their conclusion to be justified.

Their conclusion is: Incomes must have risen at a greater rate than the cost of food during the period specified.

What is their evidence: Well 30 well years single people spent about twice as high a percentage of their income on food, AND over the 30 years these single people's income as increased.

Okay, so when I read this question I think "Okay, incomes may have risen at a higher rate than food OR maybe people changed the foods they eat OR maybe people eat less food now."

(A) seems to address one of our alternatives but it is outside the scope. The argument is only about single people, the per capita consumption of ALL people doesn't justify our conclusion because despite the overall consumption being identical SINGLE people could still be eating less.

(B) Healthier foods? Okay, so the test writers want us to make the connection in our head between healthy = more expensive. But that is an unwarranted assumption.

(D) Comparison trap. Who cares about the relationship of non-food to food items. Irrelevant.

E) Who cares at all about families. Our argument is solely about single people
Which leaves us with the answer, (C.), if on average single people purchase the same types of food in the same quantities as thirty years ago this justifies our conclusion.

That's interesting because on the LSAT HACK Forum, and the Manhattan forum they say that this both weakens???? Can it be weaken and be out of scope at the same time?

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:13 pm

Post removed.

ltowns1 · Post by **ltowns1** » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:05 pm

mornincounselor wrote:So the main crux of (e) about families is out of scope. But the answer uses the word "unlike" to infer something about single people. It's like saying "Unlike on Tuesday, on Wednesday it rained" by inference we can conclude on Tuesday it did not rain.

So it's saying that while families spend about the same percentage as they used to, single people, by inference, do not spend the same amount. It's reaffirming our first premise. But I think it is out of scope because it doesn't relate at all to our conclusion, unless we make an assumption about families and single people buying the same types/quality of food.

If we make that assumption (and I don't think the passage justifies it) then it weakens, but in either case the choice does not help us justify the conclusion.

Yeah the only reason I'm asking is because my initial thinking was like yours. "This ain't even in scope" lol...but when I saw their
explanation, I began to question myself about it.