PrepTest 122
[lcid:3585] Prep Test 122 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
1990 editorial: Local pay
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Weaken Questions
Answer choices
-
AA pay phone typically Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. Comparing pay phones today to soft drink machines in the Ô70s mixes the timelines and thus is irrelevant to the argument. The argument compares these two things in the Ô70s, and then separately today. -
BDue to inflation, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. Pay phone calls aren't goods, so this answer doesn't address that key aspect of the stimulus. -
CGovernment regulation of phone Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. Assuming that governments didn't start regulating soft drinks in that time period, this answer provides a similarity between the two items in question, which would strengthen the argument. -
DBetween the 1970s and Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Weaken
Stimulus Summary:
1970s - Pay phone calls and soda cost about the same
Today - Soda costs about double
Conclusion - Pay phone companies should be allowed to raise their prices
Answer Anticipation:
This argument relies completely on the comparison between soda and pay phone prices in the Ô70s to justify a conclusion that pay phone companies should be able to charge more today (since soda costs more). Since the argument is relying on these two things being similar over time, any answer that brings up a relevant difference (especially one that ties it into the timeline) will serve to weaken the argument.
Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a relevant difference over the time period between soft drinks and pay phone calls. If soft drink ingredients went up, then that could explain the doubling of cost. If the same can't be said for pay phone calls, then a doubling of cost might not be justified, weakening the argument.
Key Takeaway:
Arguments that rely on two things being similar are generally weakened by relevant differences. Arguments that rely on two things being different are generally weakened by relevant similarities. -
ETechnological advances made telephone Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. First, there's no indication if soft drink equipment similarly increased in complexity. Second, there's no indication whether the equipment being more sophisticated makes it cheaper or more expensive for the phone companies. After all, computers are more sophisticated today than in the Ô70s while being much cheaper.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Grouping Games Problem 9, question 23 7 replies
Started by rockinrobinpa
-
contradiction to rule 0 replies
Started by Lion6476