Q18 - The widespread staff reductions

[c.s.sun5]

Can someone please explain why the answer is (A)? I was staring at it for a while and I just don't get it...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

We can think of the core of this argument as follows:

No increase in savings accounts of people who still have jobs --> these people are not spending less.

There are a lot of ways that money can be used -- spend or put into savings are just two of these ways. The author is flawed in assuming that if savings hasn't changed a certain way, spending hasn't either--it could be true that people are putting the money into investments, into their mattresses, or giving it to needy family members etc.

In order for the argument to be sound, we need to assume that there are not other ways the money could have been spent, and (A) is that type of assumption. Note that if we reverse (A), it essentially destroys the argument (because it could show that even though people have the same amount in their savings accounts, they could indeed be spending less, and using the left over money to pay off debts).

(B) is tempting, but it is actually the opposite of what we need -- in order for the argument to be sound, we need to know the $ didn't go to something other than spending or savings accounts.

(C) is about people who have lost jobs.

(D) whether the people are pessimistic or not has no relevance.

(E) these statistics are not required for the reasoning in the argument to be sound.

Hope that helps!

[clarafok]

so are you saying that we need an assumption that explains that because there is no unusual increase in savings, that actual spending has not decreased? which is why we have to make sure that the money isn't spent, and isn't saved...?

so why is B the opposite of what we need? helping your relatives is a form of spending, right? and if you assist your relatives financially, it means you would cut back on new purchases like the argument said right?

any help would be appreciated!

thanks in advance

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The author's point is that since savings accounts are not higher, people are not spending any less.

(B) tells us people are sometimes giving $ to family.

If you have to give $ to family, it could explain why you are spending less on purchases and yet your savings account isn't higher. Your savings account could stay the same, but maybe you spend much less on clothes and the grocery store etc because you have to give your $ to family members. This would ruin the author's argument (because based on this interpretation you ARE spending less, even if the savings doesn't reflect that).

You could argue that giving to money to family should be considered "spending," in which case the answer becomes a bit more tempting -- it could explain how the spending is actually undiminished.

If you read (B) that way, and because of that was tempted by it...

Here is where it's really helpful to be super-careful about necessary and sufficient assumptions -- we're being asked for a necessary assumption -- something that must be true for the conclusion to be true --

Does it have to be true that people gave $ to their family? Is there no other way the conclusion could have been true? No, it's just one possible explanation, so it can't be something upon which the argument must rely.

Hope that helps! I know it's a tricky q, so please follow up if you have further q's!

[clarafok]

i think i kind of see what you're saying...

so B is wrong because because like you said, it could be just one of many reasons instead of something that is necessary for the conclusion to be true.

and A is right because if we negate it, then people would be spending more even tho there is no increase in their savings, right?

can i say that A could also be just one of many reasons, like B, if it wasn't in conditional form?

thanks for clarifying!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Not sure what you mean with the conditional aspect.

But your point about the negation is right on. (A) must be true for the conclusion to be true. We're asked for an assumption that is required, and (A) fits that bill.

[clarafok]

Not sure what you mean with the conditional aspect.

thanks for clarifying! and forget my conditional question, it all makes sense now!

[griffin.811]

Does this question imply that "paying off loans at an accelerated rate" is essentially another way of saving?

It seems to me that the correct answer should have someting to do with those who still have jobs are not saving elsewhere.

If paying off loans = savings then this makes sense. If not, I am completely lost.

Thanks for the help!

[dean.won]

We can think of the core of this argument as follows:

No increase in savings accounts of people who still have jobs --> these people are not spending less.

There are a lot of ways that money can be used -- spend or put into savings are just two of these ways. The author is flawed in assuming that if savings hasn't changed a certain way, spending hasn't either--it could be true that people are putting the money into investments, into their mattresses, or giving it to needy family members etc.

In order for the argument to be sound, we need to assume that there are not other ways the money could have been spent, and (A) is that type of assumption. Note that if we reverse (A), it essentially destroys the argument (because it could show that even though people have the same amount in their savings accounts, they could indeed be spending less, and using the left over money to pay off debts).

(B) is tempting, but it is actually the opposite of what we need -- in order for the argument to be sound, we need to know the $ didn't go to something other than spending or savings accounts.

(C) is about people who have lost jobs.

(D) whether the people are pessimistic or not has no relevance.

(E) these statistics are not required for the reasoning in the argument to be sound.

Hope that helps!

so could i say that the stim is assuming a false dilemma? (if not spending on purchases then saving and vice versa)

[WaltGrace1983]

No unusual increase in the amount of $$$ in savings accounts

-->

Actual spending by people who have jobs is not reduced

We want to answer suggesting that, even though there is no increase in savings account funds, spending has indeed been reduced. We can do this in a few ways.

Perhaps the people with jobs have seen a sharp decline in their salary? This would create a situation in which the same amount of money saved would imply a decrease in the amount of actual spending.

In addition, what if there were multiple ways to save money? What if these people keep it in a checking account to save their money?

(B) This is simply not necessary. Why get relatives into this? If we have an out of scope answer like this, it would typically show that this event DOESN'T happen in order to eliminate a competing possibility.

(C) We are only focused on the people that have kept jobs, not lost them. However, this would have been correct if it merely said, "Those who kept jobs are NOT experiencing a significant decrease in salary."

(D) Who cares about their thoughts? Out of scope.

(E) Who cares about statistics? Out of scope.

(A) CORRECT. If we negate (A), we get: "The employed people with debts could be paying them off at an accelerated rate." This would both account for the lack of increase in savings while still showing that actual spending might have been reduced. If one is paying off debts at an accelerated rate then spending (as in spending money on "new purchased") would have ben reduced.

The reason why this question is incredibly hard to comprehend is that it does use vague language, "actual spending." I think "actual spending" is akin to "new purchase" but whatever.