LSAT RC Question need help

[pqthinh2000]

Dear Friend,

I've got the answer for this question is E, but personally I chose C for my answer. Could you please have a minute to discuss?

Question
People who accuse the postal service of incompetence and inefficiency while complaining of the proposed five-cent increase in postal rates do not know a bargain when they see one. Few experiences are more enjoyable than reading a personal letter from a friend. Viewed in this way, postal service is so underpriced that a five-cent increase is unworthy of serious debate.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

A. suggests that the postal service is both competent and efficient, but does not establish how competence and efficiency should be measured
B. claims that the proposed increase is insignificant but does not say at what level the increase would be worthy of serious debate
C. confuses the value of the object delivered with the value of delivering that object
D. appeals to an outside authority for support of a premise that should be established by argument
E. fails to establish whether or not the critics of the postal service are employees of the postal service

Source: http://www.quizlib.net/PlayingPublicTes ... quizid=119

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey, there.

This is actually a Flaw question within Logical Reasoning.

And (C) is the correct answer. You made it sound like (E) is.

The author concludes that the 5 cent postage increase is unworthy of debate
based on the premises that
getting a letter from a friend is incredibly valuable
and so
having to pay only 5 cents for that is a bargain

We need to stop and think about how we would object to this argument. Specifically, we consider
- missing logical links
- potential objections
- alternative explanations (when the author is presenting an explanation or causality)

How would you argue against the author, if you wanted to fight his conclusion? How would you argue that the 5 cent increase IS worthy of debate? How would you neutralize any power his premise seems to have?

My first reaction to this guy was
"When you think about going to get your mail, do you immediately think about getting an enjoyable personal letter from a friend? Not me. I think about bills and junk mail. For me, enjoyable personal letters are at best 1% of my mail."

So even if I agree with the author that I would happily pay 5 cents more for that sort of mail, I could still argue with him about all the OTHER types of mail and whether THEY merit a 5 cent increase.

Let's look at the answers
(A) The author does not suggest the postal service is competent/efficient. The author only disagrees with whether the 5 cent increase is a problem.

(B) This answer tries to go beyond the conclusion, but correct answer will immediately target the conclusion: whether or not the 5 cent increase is worthy of debate

(C) This is worded weird, but it seems true. When the author talks about how good it feels to get a letter from a friend, he's talking about "the value of that letter" (the object delivered). But the people he's fighting with are talking about the "the value of the postal service charging what it charges ... do they need to raise prices or could they just increase efficiency and competence? (the value of delivering that object)

If Person 1 said, "You shouldn't raise prices on your product when you could otherwise just cut down on costs by being more competent and efficient"
and Person 2 said
"Yeah, but it feels so good to get a letter from a friend."

Then, Person 2 isn't really engaging in Person 1's debate. 2 is changing the story to being about how much a letter is worth to the customer. 1 was talking about how much delivering a letter should cost based on on the postal service's business model.

Ultimately, our goal is to use the correct answer to present a counterargument.

(C) helps us say, "The 5 cent increase IS worthy of debate. It's not a debate over whether getting a letter has 5 cents of value. It's a debate over whether the process of delivering a letter has gotten 5 cents more expensive."

(D) There is no appeal to an outside authority.

(E) Does it matter whether the critics work for the postal service?

If they do work for the postal service, can we use that as a way to argue that "the 5 cent increase IS worthy of debate"?

If they don't work for the postal service, can we use that to argue the 5 cent increase is worth debating?

I don't see any common sense way to link where the critics work to whether this matter is worthy of debate.

People who work for the postal service might have a better idea of incompetence / inefficiency (because they're familiar with the surroundings)
or
People who don't work there might have an easier time pointing out the incompetence / inefficiency (because they have some outside perspective)

If you had a different way of arguing (E), let me know.

If you were really picking (C) all along, then you were right.