Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 8

Incorrect. This might address the budget of the library, but the argument is about the profitability of the journals.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer addresses the budget of the library, not the profits of the journals.

Incorrect. While expensive, the stimulus notes that the publishing costs have been stable, and this answer actually suggests that they're not losing money since they've survived.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Subscription rates for journals have gone up, but publishing costs are the same, so journals are making more money.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is a comparison between profitability of journals today and at an earlier period. That's based on a comparison of the cost of subscriptions (up) and the cost of publication (stable).

Taking a step back, we know that profitability is up if revenue is up and costs are the same or down, which is what the details brought up in the argument are meant to show. But do they?

Starting with revenue up—we know that subscriptions cost more, but that doesn't take into account how many libraries are subscribed, or what proportion of a scholarly journal's subscribers are libraries. If subscription costs are up but subscribers are down, then revenue might be down. Similarly, if the rate the library pays is up, but they make up a small proportion of subscribers and others are paying the same or less, then revenue might be down. Any answer highlighting the ways that subscription costs being up doesn't guarantee revenue being up will weaken this argument.

On the cost side, publishing costs are stable, but maybe other costs are higher. Any cost outside of publishing costs being up would similarly weaken the argument about profitability.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a gap on the revenue side. While library subscription costs may be up, if the majority of a journal's business comes from other subscriptions that haven't increased, then total revenue would be up marginally. That's not enough to justify the conclusion that profitability is "much more" than several years ago, undermining the argument.

Key Takeaway:
One of the things you're expected to know for the LSAT is that profits = revenue—costs. This comes down not to economics but to definitions of words, and you'll never have to actually calculate numbers here!

Incorrect. Only if this had changed and if subscription costs or publishing costs are tied to the number of journals would this affect the argument. Neither of those things are established as true.