Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LR - Dec. 97  (Read 567 times)

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
LR - Dec. 97
« on: September 27, 2004, 04:22:57 PM »
The widespread staff reductions in a certain region's economy are said to be causing people who still have their jobs to cut back on new purchases as though they, too, had become economically distressed.  Clearly, however, actual spending by such people is undiminished, bc there has been no unusual increase in the amount of money held by those people in savings accounts.

#18. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. If people in the region who continue to be employed have debts, they are not now paying them off at an accelerated rate.

B.  People in the region who continue to be employed and who have relatives who have lost their jobs commonly assist those relative financially.

C.  If people i nthe region who have lost jobs get new jobs, the new jobs generally pay less well than the ones they lost.

D. People in the region who continue to be employed are pessimistic about their prospects for increasing incomes.

E.  There exist not statistics about sales of goods in the region as a whole.

As I was typing this I see the answer.  The anwer is the third letter in the word "read."

Discuss...

maxse

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2004, 04:32:17 PM »
A?

I think because if they do started paying at an accelerated rate, then that shows that they are saving more which makes the argument fall apart.

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2004, 04:34:45 PM »
What if someone's real rich and for the hell of it decides to pay off his debt really quickly all of a sudden?  His savings isn't necessari;y increased, he could always afford to pay it off, he just didnt.


Besides, couldn't it mean the opposite?  If you pay off your debt faster, your savings -- what you're using to pay with -- decreases. 

I don't think the reasoning for your answer is nec. right.

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2004, 04:50:47 PM »
i think its A.

the author is saying that employed people are not spending less on new purchases because their savings accounts are staying constant.  in other words, he is assuming that money is either spent on new purchases or it goes into a saving account.  if A were not true, then it could be that those people's savings accounts are staying level and they ARE reducing the amount of new purchases(since there would now be a 3rd place for the money to go, namely into paying off debts).

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2004, 04:54:22 PM »
Ah, yes.  That makes more sense, thanks for the explanation.

Didn't you guys see that I gave you the answer with my whole "third letter..." thing.  You guys both seemed sorta unsure.

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2004, 04:56:29 PM »
i actually didnt read the last sentence that you wrote.  when i see lr questions here i scroll down only far enough to see choice E so i take a crack at it before seeing an answer.

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2004, 04:59:25 PM »
I know...that's what I do, too.  So I tried to be discreet so that people wouldn't see the answer when scrolling, but would know it's there if they look.  Anyways....thanks for the answer.  It's also the only one that makes any sense.

maxse

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR - Dec. 97
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2004, 05:18:47 PM »
yea I didnt see the last line either, wanted see if I can get it right. I cut my reasoning short, but it was basically the same as Cas' Finally Im thinking like him! He always gets *&^% right lol