CR: subscription prices of many professional and scholarly

[netcaesar]

There has been a sharp increase in the subscription prices of many professional and scholarly journals in the past seven years. Many publishers ascribe the necessity for these increases to the easy availability of photocopying facilities, which enable people simply to copy the articles they want rather than buying the journal.

Which of the following, if it is true, would make this explanation more plausible?

A) The great majority of professional and scholarly journals have a massive backlog of papers awaiting publication.

B) Over the past five years there has been a substantial decline in the number of individual subscriptions to professional and scholarly journals, while library subscriptions have remained fairly stable.

C) In the five years immediately preceding the price surge, there was a substantial decline in the number of individual subscriptions to professional and scholarly journals, while library subscriptions remained fairly stable.

D) Many libraries have recently begun cutting back on subscriptions to professional and scholarly journals.

E) In almost every field, several new professional and scholarly journals have begun publication in the past few years.

For me, any of these answers is correct.
Besides, I do not what is the way to approach this kind of questions: the answer must fill the gap betwee the premises and the conclusion, can it be a restatement od the conclusion?
Please, help me.

Source: takegmat.com
http://www.takegmat.com/index.php/ask-a ... -by-v-pat/

[kylo]

IMO D.


Thanks!

[JonathanSchneider]

I'd probably go with C here.
If the libraries were still getting the journals, but individuals were not, this might suggest that individuals were simply visiting the libraries to photocopy articles there; this would then justify the price increase by the companies. (Note that C is better than B in this regard because C shows that this happened before the price increase, rather than after it.)

In general, this question type ("help explain") requires us to connect the dots, as you say, netcaesar. However, we have to connect the dots in a way that very specifically addresses the conclusion itself.

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

Why not B?

[esledge]

Cesar, I think the only difference between B and C is the timeframe.

One of the premises is that "there has been a sharp increase in the subscription prices of many professional and scholarly journals in the past seven years." (Emphasis mine.) It's not totally clear whether that sharp increase was in EACH of the past seven years, equally spread OVER the past seven years, or in just some of the years DURING the past seven. Choice B, which addresses just the past five years, might not support the explanation. Choice C, which addresses the five years immediately before the price surge (whenever that occured), would offer support for the explanation given.