LSAT 144 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Government statistics show that the real…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The Andersons’ real income must have increased over the past five years.

REASONING: The Anderson’s income is currently average. Average incomes increased over the past five years.

ANALYSIS: This is a silly argument. Individuals don’t have to match the average. It’s possible that the Andersons were richer than average five years ago, but then hit a rough patch and now their income is only average.

___________

1. Which two senses? To pick an answer like this you must be able to point to two different dictionary definitions of “average” being used. This sort of answer choice is very rarely correct.
    
   In fact, the only other definition of average as a noun is a nautical insurance term:
   Average (noun): 2. the apportionment of financial liability resulting from loss of or damage to a ship or its cargo.
2. The argument did take inflation into account. “Real income” is inflation adjusted income. The first sentence of the stimulus explains this.
3. This is possible, but who cares? The stimulus is only talking about the Andersons’ incomes in relation to the average. Other people’s incomes don’t matter.
   For those curious as to how this is possible: Imagine there are 100 people in a room. One person has $100 million dollars. The others have $0. Average income is therefore $1 million, but 99% of people are below average.
4. CORRECT. It’s possible that the Andersons previously had higher than average income, but then their income increased less quickly (or dropped) and they are now only average.
5. The author didn’t assume this. Of course there will be some errors in government statistics. But they’re considered broadly accurate. The author can treat statistics as useful without implying that they’re flawless.