Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 24 Sep 2016, 22:46
GMAT Club Tests


GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance


we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Lsat 28 1.20

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 607
Location: Kolkata,India
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 691 [1] , given: 100

Lsat 28 1.20 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2009, 02:00
This post received



Question Stats:

67% (02:18) correct 33% (00:00) wrong based on 5 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

This one made my head spin!!
Please give your reasoning and what the error is in the wrong answer choices.Detailed explanations will be appreciated!!!

lsatPreptest28 1.20.pdf [147.58 KiB]
Downloaded 781 times

To download please login or register as a user


1 KUDOS received
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [1] , given: 0

Re: Lsat 28 1.20 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2009, 06:53
This post received
Yes, this certainly is a tough question. I will try to simplify it as much as I can. Lets see.

WEAK Economy----> CONSTANT Prices + INCREASED Unemployment
One has to be careful in interpreting the next statement-- "Unemployment rises only if investment decreases". What does this mean?
It means: If unemployment has risen then, the investment MUST have decreased.
It DOES NOT mean: Every decrease in investment will cause an increase in unemployment!
So, If INCREASED Unemployment, then DECREASED Investment. It is not the same thing as
DECREASED Investment-----> INCREASED Unemployment. This is where the confusion may have arisen!
Now we can consider each choice individually.

A "Either the economy is weak or the investment is decreasing"
We know from the stimulus that the 2nd part of the statement is not true,i.e., the investment is not decreasing. Now we should examine the 1st part i.e., "economy is weak". Can economy be weak and investment not decrease? No, it cannot be true! If eco. is weak, Unemployment will rise. If unemployment has risen, then investment MUST have decreased. But investment is not decreasing. Therefore, unemployment has not risen. Hence, economy has not weakened.

B "If unemployment rises then prices remain constant". Is this possible? Yes, it is. There is no established relationship between unemployment and prices in the stimulus; nor is there any established relationship between investment and prices. So they can change independent of each other.

C "The economy is weak only if investment decreases". Could this be true? Yes.
In the stimulus, there is no established relationship between economy and investment. So one can assume this scenario:

DECREASED Investment---> WEAK Economy---> CONSTANT Prices + INCREASED Unemployment.

D "Either the economy is weak or the prices are remaining constant". Is this possible?
The 1st part is not possible because if the economy is weak then, unemployment must rise and if unemployment has risen the, the investment must have decreased. But the stimulus tells us that investment has not decreased; so the economy has not weakened.
How about the 2nd part, i.e., "prices are remaining constant"? There is no established relationship in the stimulus between prices and investment. Therefore, this scenario is possible.

E "Either unemployment is rising or the economy is not weak". Could any of this be true?
Yes. The 1st part cannot be true since the investment has not decreased. The 2nd part can be true.

Therefore, according to me the Ans should be A.
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 2

Re: Lsat 28 1.20 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2009, 08:28
Given the passage, I would go with C.

a) It is given in the question that the investment is not decreasing, and also that this is true :-). So investment cannot be decreasing.

b) the statement says. if x (weak economy) then y (constant prices) and z (rise in unemployment).. no evidence to prove that if z then y.

c) sounds OK compare to others. if the investment decreases, unemployment will raise. note that 'only' is given in cause for rise in unemployment.

So if it has to be x then y and z should hold true. But for z to hold true investement should decrease.

So the economy is weak only if the investement decreases.

d)Both cannot be in a either/or situation. Both of them occur at the same time.

e)statement Clearly states that the investement is not decreasing. So there is no chance that the unemployment is raising.

and the defence rests !!

alternate opinions ??
1 KUDOS received
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 607
Location: Kolkata,India
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 691 [1] , given: 100

Re: Lsat 28 1.20 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2009, 10:48
This post received
OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:

This is a formal logic question, as signaled by “if/then” and “only if,” which means we
need to translate the statements into similar form and go on to make whatever deduction is
available to us.
Sentence 1 says that a weak economy is sufficient to bring about two effects: constant prices
and rising unemployment. Okay for now. Sentence 2’s “only if” signals a necessary
condition, so we can translate the sentence into if/then terms, to wit:
If unemployment rises, then investment decreases.
Now formulate the contrapositive:
If investment is not decreasing, then unemployment is not rising.
And look!—sentence 3 confirms the latter “if” to be the case: Investment, indeed, is not
decreasing. Hence, from sentence 2’s contrapositive, we can deduce that unemployment
indeed is not rising. And that has an impact on sentence 1, whose contrapositive must
If either prices are not constant or unemployment is not rising, then the economy is not weak.
And that leads us to a final deduction. The latter “if” has just been confirmed—it is a fact
that unemployment isn’t rising—hence we must conclude that the economy is not weak.
So of the four factors in the stimulus—economy, prices, unemployment, and investment—
we are sure of the status of three of them. Only prices is up for grabs; they may or may not
remain constant. Now: Keep in mind that the right answer must be false, so the four wrong
choices either could or must be true. And no sooner do we start looking that we see that:
(A) is impossible. Its second clause is flatly contradicted by stimulus sentence 3, and its
first clause is contradicted by our final deduction that “the economy is not weak.” Neither
of (A)’s conditions is possible, so (A) is what we are looking for. For the record:
(B) is possible, because unemployment’s rise has no effect, as far as we’re told, on the
constancy of prices.
(C) must be true. A weak economy means a rise in unemployment, which in turn means
decreased investment. Hence (C) is deducible when sentences 1 and 2 are combined. This
one is selected by students who forget what they’re being asked for.
(D) The first clause in (D) can’t be true—we deduced that the economy is NOT weak.
However, the second clause could be true, as we saw that prices may or may not remain
constant. So overall, (D) contains a statement that could be true and is therefore not what
we seek here.
(E) Again, as in (D), the first clause cannot be true (unemployment is NOT rising), but the
second clause must be true—the economy indeed is not weak, as we deduced above. (E) is
therefore a statement that must be true.

Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1353
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 10

Re: Lsat 28 1.20 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2011, 04:02
its clearly mentioned that investment is not decreasing.
Hence except A others are all possible scenarios.


Visit --
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9758
Followers: 837

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Lsat 28 1.20 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2014, 00:43
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Lsat 28 1.20   [#permalink] 02 Feb 2014, 00:43
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Lsat 28 1.25 tejal777 2 03 Sep 2009, 02:26
Lsat 28 1.17 tejal777 12 03 Sep 2009, 01:52
Lsat 28 1.16 tejal777 4 03 Sep 2009, 01:45
LSAT PREP 28 #3 tejal777 3 02 Sep 2009, 17:01
LSAT 28 CR(3) tejal777 5 02 Sep 2009, 04:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Lsat 28 1.20

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.