Weird ? Type: Argument Evaluation / NEC

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
User avatar
batlaw

New
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:59 pm

Weird ? Type: Argument Evaluation / NEC

Postby batlaw » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:18 am

Okay so I have some questions about PT 68-2-2:
“Dumping” is defined as selling a product in another country for less than production cost. Shrimp producers from Country F are selling shrimp in Country G below the cost of producing shrimp in Country G. So Country F’s producers are dumping shrimp.

In order to evaluate the argument above, it is necessary to determine whether

(A) “production cost” is the definition of dumping refers to the cost of producing the product in the country where it originates or in the country where it is sold
(B) there is agreement among experts about whether dumping is harmful to the economy of the country in which products are sold for less than production cost
(C) shrimp producers from Country F charge more for shrimp that they sell within their own country than for shrimp that they sell in Country G
(D) shrimp producers from Country F will eventually go out of business if they continue to sell shrimp in Country G for less than production cost
(E) shrimp producers from Country F are selling shrimp in Country G for considerably less than production cost or just slightly less

---------------
(A) I feel like this may be useful, but not 100% necessary. For example, if we also found out that the production cost in Country F was the same or greater than in Country G would that not get us to the same point? Further, I feel like “production cost” doesn’t have to refer to just one or the other of these options, but could refer to something else (i.e. the production cost of the individual company). Additionally, even if we do get a refined definition of “production cost” to mean that it refers to the country where it originates we still do not have enough information to confirm or deny the conclusion that F is dumping shrimp (because we do not know what F’s production cost is!). So while this would be nice for the understanding or flow of the argument I don’t think it is necessary (the negation test does not hold in my mind).
(B) Outside scope.
(C) What they charge in F is irrelevant here.
(D) I get that this is wrong, but there is a small part of me that is tempted to infer from “go out of business” something about the relationship between the price and production cost. However, I was able to eliminate it by the fact that it only is talking about “if they continue in G” and they could obviously be selling shrimp in other countries as well. I’d love some feedback though on how people keep from inferring too much or recognize that they are making too big a jump with wording meaning.
(E) Okay – I understand that it doesn’t matter how much less than production cost the shrimp are sold for and that E is determining if it was a lot or a little less. But here is the thing, if it was either of those than it would be dumping. I could see myself slightly misreading this and choosing this if I read the choices as “necessary if” instead of “necessary whether.”

That brings me to another question – this stem is slightly different than other NEC in that it has the “in order to evaluate the argument” flavor. Do we approach those differently than normal NEC? Does the negation test no longer hold? Is this type of question increasingly common? I seem to remember at least another like it on 68.

I got to the right answer but only by eliminating the others and not thinking too much. However, I could see myself going with E if rushed.

What am I missing? Any insights?

Rogah

New
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:35 pm

Re: Weird ? Type: Argument Evaluation / NEC

Postby Rogah » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:49 pm

I think you may be missing this: Our only job is to evaluate the argument, i.e., whether the conclusion follows logically from the premise(s).



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheMiddleLeon and 15 guests