Hi T,
Thanks for the question! I remember when I first saw this question, which was when I was taking this as a timed practice test. It stopped me cold during the exam, and is one of the few times I remember seeing a live question and thinking, "this thing is totally flawed." And, indeed, this is a flawed LSAT question because (E) simply doesn't have to be true. So let's first cover what the stimulus is saying, then talk about (E), before finally talking about why this problem is still worth studying.
The stimulus opens with a factual statement to the effect that in the past 25 years, the use of technology has made it so workers can work fewer hours but still produce the same output. This is a classic efficiency statement indicating that technology is helping make people more productive per hour. Because of this, there is the potential for workers to work fewer hours per week, which then allows them more leisure time. Continuing on, the stimulus notes that, somewhat unexpectedly, leisure time increased only half as fast as the average hourly output increased. What does this mean? That while workers are getting more and more productive, their leisure time isn't increasing quite as fast. If all things were equal (such as that we only had to produce a fixed amount per week), an increase in productivity should allow for greater and greater leisure time (note: there are problems with this rate-to-rate comparison, but let's move past that for the moment).
The first thing to note is that this is a Fact Set that contains no conclusion. And while we might expect a Resolve question (to explain that last sentence, for which there are some obvious explanations including that management is expecting greater output from everyone and has raised weekly targets (or something similar)) instead we get a Must Be True question, which also isn't unusual. We now need an answer that is proven as well as possible by the statements in the stimulus.
With (A), (B), and (C), we get answers that introduce elements that aren't addressed in the stimulus ("spend more money," "created fewer jobs," and "percentage of the population in the workforce") and thus are suspect right off the bat. (D) and (E) look more promising, because they include "average hourly/weekly output per worker" which is more in line with what was discussed in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D) doesn't work, however, because it goes on to discuss "as had been anticipated," and we have no information on what expectations were when this technology was first introduced. That leaves (E) as the most promising candidate.
Answer choice (E): This is the credited answer. However, the table below shows a problem:
25 Years Ago Today Rate of Growth
Leisure Time 16 Hrs/Day 20 Hrs/Day 25%
Work Time 8 Hrs/Day 4 Hrs/Day
Production 10 Units/Hr 15 Units/Hr 50%
Total Production 80 Units/Day 60 Units/Day
Because the hypothetical situation above conforms precisely to the conditions given in the stimulus, but it contradicts answer choice (E), the answer is flawed. Note that the different daily total outputs aren't a problem, as the stimulus doesn't specify the totals must be identical (just that the amount of time to produce the totals has to be less now), and then answer choice (E) specifically contemplates them being unequal.
Where did the problem occur? Within the discussion of rates in the last sentence. Growth rates fundamentally depend on the initial number, and because of that comparing things that are not similar (such as leisure time and output) can be misleading. For example, consider a business that makes a million dollars more this year than last year. Depending on how much they made last year, their growth rate could be phenomenal or it could be rather measly:
- Last year's revenue = $1M
This year's revenue = $2M
Revenue Growth Rate = 100%
Last year's revenue = $100M
This year's revenue = $101M
Revenue Growth Rate = 1%
Same exact revenue increase ($1M), but depending on the starting point, it's either 1% growth or 100% growth. It's a good example of why young businesses can post very high growth rates whereas more mature businesses (who often have larger yearly revenue figures developed over time) often post lower growth rates. In our example above, the leisure time started at a higher number (16) vs the production (10) and that difference has a big effect when calculating a growth rate.
So, why look at this question if it has a problem? Well, the first reason is to see what it looks like when they screw up! We can learn from everything they do, including their mistakes. Second, not everyone would notice an error like this during the exam (I'm pretty sure this is the one instance in my entire life where my Econ degree made a difference) and so it is possible that you might face something like this and have to deal with it in real time (in that case it's better not to see the error; in fact, always assume the problem is sound, and then worry about it later. Most of the time they don't make mistakes, to be honest). Last, and perhaps most importantly, this is where LSAT Radar comes in. As one of my friends at the time said to me, "I didn't see that mistake and didn't work out the math, but I knew what they wanted so I chose it and was sure I was right." I also reluctantly chose (E), even though I didn't like it, mainly because everything else was worse (which was key), and because (E)
sounded like the answer they would want. the more you study their problems and their language, the more you will see the patterns they use and the direction they are heading in. for all great test takers, there comes moments when you aren't totally sure, but you go with your gut feeling. Make sure that "gut" feeling is built on hours and hours worth of studying questions, because then it becomes far less random than you think.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
