PT 49, Section 2, Question 8

cp16
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:58 pm

PT 49, Section 2, Question 8

Postby cp16 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:15 pm

Does this question seem a little off to anybody else? The editorial is arguing that phone companies should be able to increase the cost of phone calls because soft drink prices have nearly doubled. It also states that pay phone call prices have remained unchanged since the 1970s. I fail to see how D would weaken the argument. If the ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment, wouldn't this still imply that the cost of telephone equipment has increased? If this is the case, how does this weaken the argument? It seems to me the argument would have to ask for the price of phone calls to double along with the price of soft drinks for this answer to work. Maybe I'm missing something and somebody could help me out.

Curry

Re: PT 49, Section 2, Question 8

Postby Curry » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:27 pm

I didn't like this question. I think the Editorial's argument was something like (I'm going off memory here) if soft drink companies were able to double prices over the course of 10 years., then telephone companies should be able to raise (thats the key. raise not double) prices too.

The reason why D weakens is that it gives a reason as to why the soft drinks company raised their prices. Maybe there was a law that said "if your costs increase at X% over 10 years, you can raise your prices." Even though the telephone companies costs raised, maybe they didn't meet that minimum, thus showing that they shouldn't be able to raise their prices.

I hate this question because i don't think assuming that law is a reasonable assumption to make, but its the best bad answer so i picked it.
Last edited by Curry on Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cp16
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: PT 49, Section 2, Question 8

Postby cp16 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:37 pm

Thanks for the response. Yeah, that's the right question. I was thinking something along those lines as well. It just kind of seems if we are making loose assumptions like that, I could also come up with something to make other answer choices work. In addition, while giving a reason why soft drink companies raised prices, it also implies that telephone equipment has gone up in price as well (just at a slower rate than soft drink ingredients). Because the editorial is arguing for increased phone prices on the basis of the soft drink price increases, I still don't see how increasing phone prices (regardless of whether they are increasing slower than soft drink ingredient prices), would weaken the argument.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Alexandros, Baidu [Spider], bearedman8, dontsaywhatyoumean, drz and 10 guests