Q25 - Claude: Because of the relatively

[lichenrachel]

I don't understand why E is the right answer. In Thelma's argument, the number of middle-aged people is not even mentioned. Could somebody explain to me? Many thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So we're looking for a claim that both Claude and Thelma would agree with. This is a twist on the traditional Identify the Disagreement question we should be familiar with.

To your specific question, Thelma definitely discusses the glut of middle-aged workers. So does, Claude. Claude claims that the glut of middle-aged workers will decrease economic productivity, while Thelma claims that the workers will increase economic productivity. So while they disagree about the affect of the glut of middle-aged workers, they do both agree that the glut will affect economic productivity. Best expressed in answer choice (E).

(A) is not a claim that either would agree with.
(B) is not a claim that either would agree with.
(C) is a claim that Thelma might agree with, but Claude doesn't address.
(D) is a twist of a premise in both Claude's and Thelma's argument. They would both claim there is a glut of middle-aged workers, but that doesn't mean that the number of middle-aged workers will increase. Close, but not quite.
(E) is a claim that both Claude and Thelma would agree with.

Does that help clear this one up? If you still need any help with it, let me know, I'd be happy to keep working on it with you!

[lichenrachel]

Oh...now I see. I read Thelma's argument wrong... stupid mistake.

Thanks so much for your patient explanation!

[didi0504]

I see how E is right. But why is C wrong?

Thanks~!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to help!

Make sure that you've found an answer choice that one person would agree with and the other would not.

The problem with answer choice (C) is that we don't know that Thelma would disagree. Claude would probably agree with this answer choice. But in order for it to be the point of disagreement, we would need to be able to establish that Thelma would disagree with this claim. We can't, so it's not the correct answer.

Does that answer your question?

[Nina]

hey Matt,

i totally agree with your explanation, but just have a little question about answer B. You mentioned that this is not a claim that either would agree with, but i feel like this one is a half-scope: since Thelma mentioned "improving the quality of life even if many of the companies ultimately fail." Will he probably agree with this claim?

Thanks a lot!

[sumukh09]

hey Matt,

i totally agree with your explanation, but just have a little question about answer B. You mentioned that this is not a claim that either would agree with, but i feel like this one is a half-scope: since Thelma mentioned "improving the quality of life even if many of the companies ultimately fail." Will he probably agree with this claim?

Thanks a lot!

I think you're right that Thelma would agree with this. Thelma says even if many companies end up failing, economic productivity and thus an improvement in the quality of life will occur if middle aged workers work hard when they form new companies. So if many companies fail, that wouldn't necessarily have a negative effect on overall economic productivity.

[asafezrati]

Regarding the above two posts regarding B -
Thelma says that improvement in EP and QofL will occur EVEN IF many companies will fail. This doesn't mean that these failures don't have a negative effect. This actually says that their impact, if existant, will not be bad enough to turn the table and decrease EP and QofL.

In short:
Positive effect of glut of MA on EP and QofL > any possible negative effect of failure of many new companies
=>
EP and QofL improve anyhow

The negative effect will be mitigated by the overall positive effect.