#19 - In the first decade following the founding of the

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I just want to know why B is right, and why c is the wrong answer, what makes it wrong and what makes B right. So, basically I thought if the numbers are correct than techincally the statement that they gained more voters the second time is correct, because it is similar to exponential growth. However, I picked C.

Thanks in advance,

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi ellenb,

In that one, the author provides that during the Labour Party's first decade, the party increased its voters by five times. (say, from 10 to 50, for an increase of 40).

In the next decade, the party increased its votes by another five times (with the same example, this would represent an increase from 50 to 250--for an increase of 200).

Based on this, we can see that the number of voters actually did increase by more during the second decade, yet the author concludes that this claim must be false. That is an inherent contradiction, as described by answer choice B.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[hlee18]

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. 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 second decade.

Or

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

[Dave Killoran]

Hi hlee,

Let's look at this from LSAC's perspective, since they make the test and have said categorically that (B) is the correct answer (a point I agree with them on). LSAC would say that you made a distinction here that they do not find meaningful, namely that to them "regular" voters are the same as "committed." To them, if you do something regularly, you are committed, and if you are committed you'll do it regularly. This is a trick they use often, and you also see it often with conditions in sufficient and necessary problems (where restatements of this sort are fairly common).

At that point, you can see the big problem here, which is that they are talking about two 5X increases, but then acting as if that increase doesn't have an actual impact on real numbers. They then make the problem harder by using language in (B) indicating the conclusion drawn was false, which can feel upside down.

There's a certain degree of "LSAT radar" needed to know when they will allow for the equivalence of terms like this, but then again that's why we preach using real questions: to get that radar in place To help with that process, when you see terms that aren't identical, you want to ask yourself, are they similar enough to pass a reasonability test? I'd say that in this case they are.

Thanks!

[pflores]

Hello,

I understand why B is correct. But i can't quite grasp why C is incorrect. Would you please explain?

thank you,

[Luke Haqq]

Hi pflores!

The conclusion in this stimulus is the final clause: "the often-made claim that the Labour party gained more voters in the party’s second decade than in its first is clearly false." In support of this conclusion, the author cites to data from the first decade as well as the second decade of the Labour party's existence. Regarding answer choice (C), this data isn't irrelevant to the conclusion being reached. Rather, it's quite relevant and pertinent. The author just reaches a wrong conclusion based on that data.

[dshen123]

Hi pflores!

The conclusion in this stimulus is the final clause: "the often-made claim that the Labour party gained more voters in the party’s second decade than in its first is clearly false." In support of this conclusion, the author cites to data from the first decade as well as the second decade of the Labour party's existence. Regarding answer choice (C), this data isn't irrelevant to the conclusion being reached. Rather, it's quite relevant and pertinent. The author just reaches a wrong conclusion based on that data.

Hello!
Does the conclusion include "since the increase was the same in the first as in the second decade"? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The word "since" is a common premise indicator, dshen123, not a conclusion indicator. So the text you asked about is one of the premises and not a part of the conclusion. This argument can be broken down a little like this:

Premise: 1st decade, voters multiplied by 5

Premise: 2nd decade, voters again multiplied by 5

Premise: Those are the same levels of growth (you might also call this an Intermediate Conclusion, which is a conclusion based on some premises and which is then used as a premise to support another conclusion)

Conclusion: They didn't grow more in the 2nd decade than they did in the 1st decade

The problem, of course, is simple math: the growth in the 2nd decade was multiplying a larger number by 5. Thus, the third premise/intermediate conclusion is contradicted by the math in the first two premises, making the main conclusion impossible.

So, back to your question: is it part of the main conclusion? No. Could we view it as an intermediate conclusion? Yes!