LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- luis.rodriguez
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 2
- Joined: January 27th, 2014
Q10 - Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard
An explanation for this question would be useful.
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 309
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q10 - Household indebtedness, which some theorists regard
Hi Luis,
Thanks for your post. The phrasing of this question is weird and unusual, but really it’s just asking us to identify the argument’s conclusion. The author concludes here that "the real cause [of the recession] must lie elsewhere." We can tell this is the conclusion because of the key words "therefore" and "must lie" (when an author states "X must be true" s/he is making a claim).
But let’s think a bit more about this conclusion. "The real cause cause of the recession must lie elsewhere"...elsewhere than what? The argument concerns household indebtedness vis-a-vis the recession. Some people think household indebtedness caused the recession, but the author offers evidence as to why this might not be the case. So the author is really saying "household indebtedness did not cause the recession."
This is exactly what (A) states, and (A) is the correct answer.
(B) is unsupported. The author seems to think low-income houses wouldn’t have received any credit, so what debts would they have to pay off?
(C) is too big a leap. Besides, we’re trying to figure out what caused the recession, not what happened during the recession.
(D) is too extreme. Little effect? Also, we’re talking about the recession in particular, not the economy in general.
(E) is unsupported. We don’t know anything about how people spent borrowed money.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for your post. The phrasing of this question is weird and unusual, but really it’s just asking us to identify the argument’s conclusion. The author concludes here that "the real cause [of the recession] must lie elsewhere." We can tell this is the conclusion because of the key words "therefore" and "must lie" (when an author states "X must be true" s/he is making a claim).
But let’s think a bit more about this conclusion. "The real cause cause of the recession must lie elsewhere"...elsewhere than what? The argument concerns household indebtedness vis-a-vis the recession. Some people think household indebtedness caused the recession, but the author offers evidence as to why this might not be the case. So the author is really saying "household indebtedness did not cause the recession."
This is exactly what (A) states, and (A) is the correct answer.
(B) is unsupported. The author seems to think low-income houses wouldn’t have received any credit, so what debts would they have to pay off?
(C) is too big a leap. Besides, we’re trying to figure out what caused the recession, not what happened during the recession.
(D) is too extreme. Little effect? Also, we’re talking about the recession in particular, not the economy in general.
(E) is unsupported. We don’t know anything about how people spent borrowed money.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1