Q13 - Consumer advocate: A recent study

[willbrown275]

Atlas Staff

I narrowed this question down to answers A & C and chose C incorrectly because of the question stem saying "argument depends?" which I interpret to mean look for the Necessary assumption.

I thought answer A was an example of a sufficient assumption and C was Necessary but obviously was wrong and don't quite have this down. Can someone give me an explanation for this one?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Yeah, I think you got turned around on that. It's actually the other way around. Answer choice is (C) is actually the sufficient assumption, as the truth of answer choice (C) would guarantee the conclusion. But it's not necessary that convenience is "the only" important factor. It's simply too strong...

Answer choice (A) is necessary to the argument. We know that there are some advantages to top-loaders and, for wheelchair users, there are some advantages to front-loaders.

In order to establish the conclusion that for some consumers front-loaders are superior, it needs to be true that the advantages (convenience) of front-loaders outweighs the advantages of top-loaders (overall quality). Only then could we establish that for some consumers front-loaders are superior.

Does that answer your question?

[willbrown275]

Yes it does but it also raises another:

If I got down to A & C as possibilities and negated each, would negating C not obliterate the argument just as A would?

If convenience was not the only factor in determining superiority

and the reason wheelchair users prefer the front-loaders is because it is more convenient than the inconvenient top-loaders

then doesn't that destroy the argument as well? I know I'm splitting hairs here but that seems to be what these types of questions are all about.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not exactly. Even if convenience was not the only factor in determining superiority, convenience could still be an important factor and could definitely be more important than the advantages associated with top-loaders.

Good question. This is going to be a skill that you're going to want to develop over the next two months. It's not easy and there is some practice in learning to hear whether the conclusion would be undermined.

But ask yourself next time, "what if it weren't the only factor in determining superiority?" Could the conclusion still be true. If not, you've found your answer, if so, pass the answer choice over.

Good luck!

[zainrizvi]

I don't understand how (A) is necessary. The advantages have to outweigh the advantages.. but what about disadvantages?

If X has less disadvantages than Y, even though they have the same number of advantages, X would still be preferable. Similarly, something could be superior even though it doesn't have an extra advantage.


Also, I'm confused by answer choice (C), which I picked. If convenience is NOT the only important factor, sure the conclusion isn't false, but that isn't our job, right? Aren't we supposed to destroy the basis for the conclusion? If convenience is NOT the only important factor, the evidence will not allow the conclusion to follow because there are so many other factors to consider..

[Daniella.owusu]

I don't know if anyone still had questions or still confused about this, so I'd like to throw in my two cents. But, before I begin, you should definitely look over the LR strategy book for the Assumption questions chapter. This question would make so much sense afterward.

The conclusion is that, "For some consumers, front-loaders are superior." I always ask myself, well why is this superior? The premise tells you that front-loaders have the control and access in front and this is more convenient for wheelchair users. The answer must find a way to show why this reason would lead to the conclusion that front-loaders are superior for some people.

Choice (A) is correct because it is safely worded and it is necessary for the argument. If this is negated, "For some consumers the convenience of front-loaders DOES NOT outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior, then the argument falls apart. The argument falls apart because the conclusion is based on at least believing that convenience is a factor.

Choice (C) is wrong because it does not say that it is the only factor. Even if this is negated and we know that convenience is not the only factor, the argument is not necessarily destroyed because it could be the most important out of ten factors. The argument does not need for this to be the only important factor, and that is what makes this answer wrong. It is also too strongly worded for a necessary assumption. In the strategy book, you see that a necessary only has to fill the arrow half way. This is a sufficient answer because this doesn't leave any room for error.

Hope this helps!

P.S Thank you so much Manhattan LSAT!! I will forever be indebted to the help you give to all of us

[guolan27]

I chose answer choice (C) but now understand why the correct answer is (A).

Answer choice (A) tells us that for SOME consumers (wheelchair users) the convenience of front-loaders outweighs the advantages of top-loaders. This is not necessarily true for other people (i.e. non-wheelchair users), but we need this statement to be true in order to support the conclusion that for SOME people (wheelchair users) front-loaders are superior.

Answer choice (C) is too extreme. We cannot assume that convenience is the only factor required to assess the superiority of a washing machine. Maybe convenience is one of the many factors wheelchair users consider or maybe convenience is not the most important factor for non-wheelchair users. The point is that we don't know and therefore should not make any assumptions about this.

Also note that answer choice (C) is general and does not mention a particular group of people like wheelchair users, non-wheelchair users or just some consumers.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice discussion Daniella.owusu and guolan27! You've both got it!

[daniel]

Choice (A) is correct because it is safely worded and it is necessary for the argument. If this is negated, "For some consumers the convenience of front-loaders DOES NOT outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior, then the argument falls apart. The argument falls apart because the conclusion is based on at least believing that convenience is a factor.

I agree with your conclusion, but wouldn't you negate this by changing "Some consumers" to "No consumers" (or "not any consumers")? By negating the central verb as you've done here, aren't you leaving open the possibility of eliciting a "so what?" rebuttal? (i.e., convenience is supieror for some, but it's also not superior for some others).

I would formulate the negation as follows:

For NO consumers the convenience of front-loaders outweighs the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior.

As the above is kind of awkward, the following may be a little more clear:

Convenience of front-loaders DOES NOT outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior FOR ANY CONSUMERS.

[WaltGrace1983]

I agree with your conclusion, but wouldn't you negate this by changing "Some consumers" to "No consumers" (or "not any consumers")? By negating the central verb as you've done here, aren't you leaving open the possibility of eliciting a "so what?" rebuttal? (i.e., convenience is supieror for some, but it's also not superior for some others).

I would formulate the negation as follows:

For NO consumers the convenience of front-loaders outweighs the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior.

As the above is kind of awkward, the following may be a little more clear:

Convenience of front-loaders DOES NOT outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior FOR ANY CONSUMERS.

I agree with this and I believe that it is right. If we were to negate it by saying "For some consumers the convenience of front-loaders does not outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior," then we essentially have not done anything to the argument. Why? Because the conclusion is only talking about "some," not "all!" Thus, who is to say that one "some" in the argument's conclusion overlaps with the "some" in (A)?

I'll add something to (C) too because I eliminated it for a different reason. The argument is talking really about one specific group of people - wheelchair users. (C) is talking about all people. Now we only know how wheelchair users feel, yet we know nothing about how other users feel about superiority. Thus, to say that this is the "only" important factor would be to overstep our boundaries in at least that way.

Now, I would venture to say that (C) could be right if it said "convenience is the most important factor in assessing which one is superior for some users..." but that is basically the same thing as (A).

[braintreeprez]

I agree with your conclusion, but wouldn't you negate this by changing "Some consumers" to "No consumers" (or "not any consumers")? By negating the central verb as you've done here, aren't you leaving open the possibility of eliciting a "so what?" rebuttal? (i.e., convenience is supieror for some, but it's also not superior for some others).

I would formulate the negation as follows:

For NO consumers the convenience of front-loaders outweighs the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior.

As the above is kind of awkward, the following may be a little more clear:

Convenience of front-loaders DOES NOT outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior FOR ANY CONSUMERS.

I agree with this and I believe that it is right. If we were to negate it by saying "For some consumers the convenience of front-loaders does not outweigh the advantages of top-loaders in assessing which is superior," then we essentially have not done anything to the argument. Why? Because the conclusion is only talking about "some," not "all!" Thus, who is to say that one "some" in the argument's conclusion overlaps with the "some" in (A)?

I'll add something to (C) too because I eliminated it for a different reason. The argument is talking really about one specific group of people - wheelchair users. (C) is talking about all people. Now we only know how wheelchair users feel, yet we know nothing about how other users feel about superiority. Thus, to say that this is the "only" important factor would be to overstep our boundaries in at least that way.

Now, I would venture to say that (C) could be right if it said "convenience is the most important factor in assessing which one is superior for some users..." but that is basically the same thing as (A).

Totally agree with these points re: how to negate answer choice A. In fact, the trick of changing modifiers rather than the whole statement/main verb is discussed at length in the LR strategy guide. For example, if you negate the main verb in the following statement, you essentially get a statement that poses no problem to the original claim:

Claim: Some flowers are red.
Faulty Negation: Some flowers are NOT red.

The statements don't necessarily contradict each other and could actually be interpreted as being congruous: some flowers are red while others aren't. When negating statements likes these, which contain modifiers (i.e. describes how often/how many of something occurs), you must change the modifier, NOT the central verb.

Claim: Some flowers are red.
Correct Negation: NO flowers are red.

Hence, the statement, "For some consumers, the convenience of front-loaders does not outweigh the advantages..." should be negated to say, "For NO consumers does the convenience of front-loaders outweigh the advantages..."