Q19 - In the first decade following

[clarafok]

hello,

i'm not really seeing why B is the correct answer.

so the argument is saying that people who voted in the first decade increased fivefold, and during the second decade increased a further fivefold. and then it says that the increase was the same during the first and second decade. and im thinking this is wrong because the second fivefold would be much better than the first fivefold right? so for example, maybe it started out with 20, so when it increased fivefold during the first decade, they got 100 voters. and the second fivefold would be 500 voters. is this why the conclusion doesn't stand? so it basically has to be true that they got more new voters in the second decade, and therefore B is the correct answer?

please help!

thanks in advance!

[giladedelman]

You don't need my help -- you've got it exactly right!

Based on the data given, the second increase had to be more than the first increase. So the intermediate conclusion that "the increase was thus the same in the first as in the second decade" is totally false, and therefore the conclusion it supports must be false as well.

Your explanation was great!

[gilad.bendheim]

Hi - can someone help explain why (C) cannot be right?

I was struggling between (B) and (C), because (B) was obviously correct on the grand scale, but (C) seemed to pinpoint the exact problem, that is, that the way the author compared the PERCENT change is irrelevant in the conclusion regarding the AMOUNT change. I guess using the statistical data would be relevant to establish that the conclusion CANNOT be drawn, but I dont see why it is incorrect to say that this use of the stats was irrelevant in the claim actually made here (the claim being that no % change means no # change).

I'm not looking for a reason that (B) is correct, just a sure-fire way of understand why (C) is incorrect so I dont make the same mistake again.

Thanks

[giladedelman]

Good question!

Here's the thing: the statistical evidence is NOT irrelevant; it actually invalidates the conclusion. That's super relevant! If it were irrelevant, it would have no bearing on the conclusion one way or the other. Does that make sense?

[jamiejames]

Let me see if I got this right.

Let's say they initially had 100 voters. This increased 5 fold in the first decade, so they had 500 voters. This then increased a further five-fold, so they had 2,500 voters. This shows that they had more voters in the second decade, thus the conclusion that they didn't have more voters in the second decade is incorrect, thus B is correct.

Am I in the right ball-park with this one?

[timmydoeslsat]

Let me see if I got this right.

Let's say they initially had 100 voters. This increased 5 fold in the first decade, so they had 500 voters. This then increased a further five-fold, so they had 2,500 voters. This shows that they had more voters in the second decade, thus the conclusion that they didn't have more voters in the second decade is incorrect, thus B is correct.

Am I in the right ball-park with this one?

Absolutely correct!

Decade 1: 5% increase
Decade 2: 5% increase

It must be the case that more people joined in Decade 2 than Decade 1 because Decade 2 has a greater base to increase from originally.

[wguwguwgu]

I was annoyed by this question.

After reading the stimulus, I was expecting something pointing out " the relative increase doesn't equal the absolute increase in number etc." as a flaw; but instead there is B which basically does not say anything other than that the conclusion is wrong.

Is this question kind of unique in that the conclusion doesn't "contain a flaw" but "absolutely wrong, cannot be true"? Or are there many such kind of questions?

many thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Is this question kind of unique in that the conclusion doesn't "contain a flaw" but "absolutely wrong, cannot be true"? Or are there many such kind of questions?

Interesting way to put it, but the argument does contain a flaw - that it's conclusion cannot be true. Typically, the flaw contained in the argument is that the conclusion has not been proven, but in this case the conclusion doesn't even have a chance.

So, it's a bit unique in the degree to which the argument is flawed, but it's not unique in that just like all the other flaw questions, its conclusion does not follow logically from the premises!

Nice discussion guys!

[WaltGrace1983]

I was looking for a super LSAT-y answer choice......I got (B). It's like whenever the LSAT knows I am ready to tackle super vague and abstract language it gives me something simple and makes me question if the answer choice is weirdly too simple. Yet when I am looking for a really simply flaw they give me something I can barely understand half the time!

Anyway, I am assuming (E) is a trap answer for people thinking about a five-fold increase in votes rather than voters?

[stm_512]

Why is this scenario wrong:

Labour Party Supporters Originally: 20 (all are committed voters)
Supporters After the First Decade: 100 (the number of committed voters stay unchanged: 20 committed, 80 uncommitted)

Supporters After the Second Decade: 100 (no supporters gained, but the 80 uncommitted voters have become committed voters during the second decade, making all 100 voters committed, increasing the committed voters 5fold as the premise suggests)

If this scenario holds, doesn't it invalidate B)?

[WaltGrace1983]

Why is this scenario wrong:

Labour Party Supporters Originally: 20 (all are committed voters)
Supporters After the First Decade: 100 (the number of committed voters stay unchanged: 20 committed, 80 uncommitted)

Supporters After the Second Decade: 100 (no supporters gained, but the 80 uncommitted voters have become committed voters during the second decade, making all 100 voters committed, increasing the committed voters 5fold as the premise suggests)

If this scenario holds, doesn't it invalidate B)?

Are you getting at a gap between people "regularly voting for the Labour Party" and "committed Labour Party voters?" If so, I don't think that's necessarily a gap.

Original: 500 voters
1st Decade: 2500 voters (500x5)
2nd Decade: 12,500 voters (2500x5)

The point is that, no matter how many voters we started with, if that number increases 5x after the first decade and FURTHER 5x after the sec on decade, then there is no way around it - there WAS an increase in voters.

I know that you see this but I think you saw a gap that the LSAT didn't really consider a gap. Am I right or wrong?

[stm_512]

Why is this scenario wrong:

Labour Party Supporters Originally: 20 (all are committed voters)
Supporters After the First Decade: 100 (the number of committed voters stay unchanged: 20 committed, 80 uncommitted)

Supporters After the Second Decade: 100 (no supporters gained, but the 80 uncommitted voters have become committed voters during the second decade, making all 100 voters committed, increasing the committed voters 5fold as the premise suggests)

If this scenario holds, doesn't it invalidate B)?

Are you getting at a gap between people "regularly voting for the Labour Party" and "committed Labour Party voters?" If so, I don't think that's necessarily a gap.

Original: 500 voters
1st Decade: 2500 voters (500x5)
2nd Decade: 12,500 voters (2500x5)

The point is that, no matter how many voters we started with, if that number increases 5x after the first decade and FURTHER 5x after the sec on decade, then there is no way around it - there WAS an increase in voters.

I know that you see this but I think you saw a gap that the LSAT didn't really consider a gap. Am I right or wrong?

Perhaps I'm over-analyzing this question. But I'm not sure why we can assume that the number of regular voters should be equivalent as the number of committed voters.

"The number increases FURTHER 5x after the second decade", why can't this mean that the number of committed voters increased 5x in the second decade (with no increase in the regular voters), just has the number of regular voters increased 5x during the first decade?

Just because I may be a regular voter doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a committed voter for a political party. No? The number of regular voters increased during the first decade, but why assume that the increase during the second decade applies to regular voters.

What is wrong with the scenario I created?

[WaltGrace1983]

Why is this scenario wrong:

Labour Party Supporters Originally: 20 (all are committed voters)
Supporters After the First Decade: 100 (the number of committed voters stay unchanged: 20 committed, 80 uncommitted)

Supporters After the Second Decade: 100 (no supporters gained, but the 80 uncommitted voters have become committed voters during the second decade, making all 100 voters committed, increasing the committed voters 5fold as the premise suggests)

If this scenario holds, doesn't it invalidate B)?

Are you getting at a gap between people "regularly voting for the Labour Party" and "committed Labour Party voters?" If so, I don't think that's necessarily a gap.

Original: 500 voters
1st Decade: 2500 voters (500x5)
2nd Decade: 12,500 voters (2500x5)

The point is that, no matter how many voters we started with, if that number increases 5x after the first decade and FURTHER 5x after the sec on decade, then there is no way around it - there WAS an increase in voters.

I know that you see this but I think you saw a gap that the LSAT didn't really consider a gap. Am I right or wrong?

Perhaps I'm over-analyzing this question. But I'm not sure why we can assume that the number of regular voters should be equivalent as the number of committed voters.

"The number increases FURTHER 5x after the second decade", why can't this mean that the number of committed voters increased 5x in the second decade (with no increase in the regular voters), just has the number of regular voters increased 5x during the first decade?

Just because I may be a regular voter doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a committed voter for a political party. No? The number of regular voters increased during the first decade, but why assume that the increase during the second decade applies to regular voters.

What is wrong with the scenario I created?

I see what you are saying and, in my opinion, that is some good thinking. There is a "gap" whenever the word is not a direct equivalent I suppose you could say. However, the question is whether or not the "gap" is negligible. Either way, let's ignore this for now.

Let's say that a "committed voter" and a "regular voter" are different things.

Regular voters = increased 5 fold during 1st decade
+
Committed voters = increased 5 fold during the 2nd decade
+
Same "5 fold" increase for both parties
→
Labor party did not gain more voters in the second decade

Now if we say this, there is STILL an increase. I don't care what "category" these voters are in. Whenever something increases five fold (or six fold, or seven fold, or two fold), there is an increase. I guess I am just a bit confused on your thought process because - no matter how you spin it - there will be an increase.

That conclusion of this argument is just absolutely 100% awful.

[HansolL655]

Hello there,

I'm trying to get a better grasp of this question. When I was going through the prompt, one thing clearly stood out to me: the comparison between increase in number of regularly voting people versus increase in number of committed voting people.

On the first decade, we see an increase by 5x of the regular.

On the second decade, we see an increase by 5x of the committed.

The conclusion is that Labour Party DID NOT gain more voters in the second decade versus first. In other words, the prompt concludes that either the Party gained the same number and/or gained less than the first decade.

Here is my problem with this question, filtered down to possible choices B and C. We do not know how the two relate to each other, but at least can assume that Total number of voters = Number of Regular + Number of Committed.

So what the prompt is going through is this, as an example that I thought of:

0th decade: Total = Number of Regular + Number of Committed = x + x = 2x

1st decade: Total = 5x + x = 6x

2nd decade: Total = 5x + 5x = 10x

But here is the problem! The prompt ASSUMES that the number of regular people voting DO NOT remain constant. If on the 2nd decade, there is loss by 4x or greater of the number of regular voters, then

2nd decade: Total = 1x + 5x = 6x and this would mean that the number of voters on the first decade equal that of first decade.

Or

2nd decade: Total = 0x + 5x = 5x and this would mean that the number of voters on the first decade is greater than that of first decade.

So that's how I saw the flaw, that the prompt takes for granted or assumes that the number of regular voters decrease in order to justify its conclusion.

Now, I ultimately chose C, but didn't like the answer choice either.

B) The problem with this is, that based on my reasoning, I can draw a conclusion that can be true if all the data advanced in its support are true. The data advanced does not prevent or preclude the possibility of decrease in number of regular voters.

C) I did not like this one either, as I would argue that it is definitely relevant to establishing the conclusion.

In conclusion, I would say neither B nor C really are good enough answer choices to this problem. What do you think?