PrepTest 130

Incorrect. The only way we can think for this answer to be relevant is if the shoppers using a shopping cart could carry more or heavier items. However, the stimulus notes that these two groups bought a "comparable" number of items, and heavier items aren't necessarily more expensive (saffron costs a ton; dog food is quite cheap per pound). This answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The necessity of the items doesn't determine their price, and even if they bought "many" items, it was still a comparable number to the other group.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Shopper Group 1 - No list, only bought items on sale for at least 50% off
Shopper Group 2 - List, no sale items
Both groups bought about the same number of items, but Shopper Group 2 spent a lot less money

Answer Anticipation:
Let's start with clearly defining the paradox here. If two groups bought approximately the same number of items, but one of them bought only sale items, you'd expect the group that bought items on sale to have spent a lot less money. In this case, however, the group that bought the sale items ended up spending a lot more money on the same number of items.

So how could a group that bought items on sale spend more money? The only way that's the case is if the items that they purchased started off a whole lot more expensive. If Group 1 was buying filet mignon and lobster at 50% off, that could be a lot more expensive than Group 2 buying full-price ramen and eggs.

Since the stimulus also mentions that Group 2 had a list but Group 1 didn't, the answer is also likely to connect that to the idea we just raised—people who stick to a list tend to buy lower-priced items, whereas people without a list get enticed by high-priced items on sale.

However, the list would be a bonus in an answer, as it's not directly related to the paradox. The paradox revolves solely around the number of items, the sale pricing, and the total spent.

Answer Explanation:
This item doesn't mention the list at all, but it does address the base price of the on-sale items. If they started out as the most expensive items, then even at 50% off, they could be more expensive than the average item. This answer explains how a group buying only sale items could spend more than a group buying only full-priced items, despite buying the same number, so it resolves the paradox.

Key Takeaway:
First, not every detail of a Paradox question ends up being relevant. Here, the lists ended up being a dead end that was there just to entice you with trap answers. If it's not related to the paradox, it doesn't have to show up in the correct answer. That said, those details frequently do get tied into the correct answer, so don't rule an answer out just because it deals with an element not directly tied to the paradox.

Second, a lot of these answers were enticing if you missed a key detail in the stimulus—that the two groups purchased "a comparable number of items." The LSAT will frequently throw a detail in that eliminates potential answers. Here, without that detail, a potential anticipated answer is that Group 1 purchased significantly more items than Group 2 (and this might even tie into the list, where Group 2 bought just the items on their list, but Group 1 wasn't so constrained and thus went a bit crazy at the store). By including this detail, the LSAT eliminated a potential avenue for a correct answer, and thus set up several trap answers that dealt with that eliminated possibility. Look out for details like this, as they can make some eliminations faster and easier!

Incorrect. Without establishing anything about who bought these expensive items, this answer doesn't provide any explanation.

Incorrect. The number of items on sale in the store is immaterial because we know that the two groups purchased the same number of items, and that's what's relevant.