Q17 - In order to save money

[liu.linda3]

What differentiates answer choices A, B, and C? I can't seem to figure out why B is the best answer. Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Hey Liu,

So this is an inference question. On an inference question, the correct answer has to be true based on the information given. Be careful of any answer choice that makes a logical leap that you can't actually make. For example:

Fact: Tommy goes to the movies six days a week
Wrong inference: Tommy likes movies
Wrong inference: Tommy seems a lot of different movies
Wrong inference: Tommy goes to the movies on Tuesday
Correct inference: Tommy spends at least some part of one weekend day at the movies every week

In this case, we are told that stores with coupons charge more for their products, because they have to compensate for the expense of making them.

(A) This seems logical (like my "Tommy likes movies") example, but it actually isn't. Redeeming coupons could still save you money. For example, you might live in a town with only one store. Your store has coupons. Technically, you're paying more than someone in another town with a store WITHOUT coupons. But as driving there isn't actually an option for you, the act of using a coupon still saves you money, because otherwise you'd be the even MORE expensive normal price.

(B) This is just a restatement of what the passage said (See above).

(C) We are told the coupon stores need to charge more in order "to compensate for this expense without reducing profits," implying that the profits more or less even out.

(D) We have no way of knowing about OTHER expenses that get passed on to consumers.

(E) We don't know about EVERY product, only that the AVERAGE price of all products is slightly higher at the stores with coupons.

Hope that helps!

-t

[schwingrocker]

Hey Liu,

So this is an inference question. On an inference question, the correct answer has to be true based on the information given. Be careful of any answer choice that makes a logical leap that you can't actually make. For example:

Fact: Tommy goes to the movies six days a week
Wrong inference: Tommy likes movies
Wrong inference: Tommy seems a lot of different movies
Wrong inference: Tommy goes to the movies on Tuesday
Correct inference: Tommy spends at least some part of one weekend day at the movies every week

In this case, we are told that stores with coupons charge more for their products, because they have to compensate for the expense of making them.

(A) This seems logical (like my "Tommy likes movies") example, but it actually isn't. Redeeming coupons could still save you money. For example, you might live in a town with only one store. Your store has coupons. Technically, you're paying more than someone in another town with a store WITHOUT coupons. But as driving there isn't actually an option for you, the act of using a coupon still saves you money, because otherwise you'd be the even MORE expensive normal price.

(B) This is just a restatement of what the passage said (See above).

(C) We are told the coupon stores need to charge more in order "to compensate for this expense without reducing profits," implying that the profits more or less even out.

(D) We have no way of knowing about OTHER expenses that get passed on to consumers.

(E) We don't know about EVERY product, only that the AVERAGE price of all products is slightly higher at the stores with coupons.

Hope that helps!

-t

But for A don't we know that there are "many" (or some) people live in cities that have several retail stores and don't save money because they use coupons at one store?

[jsd_2003]

I just have two additions/amendments to Atticus Finch's really helpful explanation.


C) "The profits of retail stores that use coupons are not significantly lower, on average, than the profits of similar stores that do not use coupons."

All we can infer from the stimulus is that the coupons that retail stores use are not really responsible for lowering their profits in comparison to similar stores that do not use coupons. There could be something else that drives down the profits of retail stores that use coupons, so that their profits are less than the profits of similar stores that do no use coupons.


E) "The undiscounted price charged for a good for which a retail store offers a coupon will be higher than the price charged for that same good by a retail store that does not offer a coupon for it."

The stimulus talks about retail stores that offer and don't offer coupons in general. It does not speak in absolutes i.e. it does not say all retail stores that offer coupons and all retail stores that don't offer coupons always behave in the way described in the stimulus. But answer choice E is about absolutes. It indicates that any retail store that offers coupons, and any retail store that doesn't, WILL act in the manner described in the stimulus.

[shodges]

Hey Liu,

So this is an inference question. On an inference question, the correct answer has to be true based on the information given. Be careful of any answer choice that makes a logical leap that you can't actually make. For example:

Fact: Tommy goes to the movies six days a week
Wrong inference: Tommy likes movies
Wrong inference: Tommy seems a lot of different movies
Wrong inference: Tommy goes to the movies on Tuesday
Correct inference: Tommy spends at least some part of one weekend day at the movies every week

In this case, we are told that stores with coupons charge more for their products, because they have to compensate for the expense of making them.

(A) This seems logical (like my "Tommy likes movies") example, but it actually isn't. Redeeming coupons could still save you money. For example, you might live in a town with only one store. Your store has coupons. Technically, you're paying more than someone in another town with a store WITHOUT coupons. But as driving there isn't actually an option for you, the act of using a coupon still saves you money, because otherwise you'd be the even MORE expensive normal price.

(B) This is just a restatement of what the passage said (See above).

(C) We are told the coupon stores need to charge more in order "to compensate for this expense without reducing profits," implying that the profits more or less even out.

(D) We have no way of knowing about OTHER expenses that get passed on to consumers.

(E) We don't know about EVERY product, only that the AVERAGE price of all products is slightly higher at the stores with coupons.

Hope that helps!

-t

But for A don't we know that there are "many" (or some) people live in cities that have several retail stores and don't save money because they use coupons at one store?

I think that's the problem. You CAN'T assume that. There stimulus never says anything about how those "many consumers" are ultimately divided up. To me, (A) was an extreme type of answer because it first says "redeem coupons" (we're not talking about coupons in general) and that the stimulus considers an "average" of the cost of products. So, there really isn't enough there to definitively say that many consumers don't save money when they redeem coupons, even if the savings turns out to be very small.

[rgrijalb]

(A) is wrong b/c we cannot infer this on the grounds that the stimulus talks only about "retail stores that distribute AND accept" coupons. All coupon savy shoppers could know the fact that a store that distributes coupons will charge more for products to compensate for production of them, hence its possible they all use them only at stores that don't distribute coupons thereby saving $$.

[daniel]

I hesitated to select (B), because the relevant portion of the stimulus is about "retail stores that distribute and accept store coupons as a way of discounting prices," whereas (B) is about "retail stores that distribute coupons." So, I'm expected to assume that if the store is distributing coupons, they will accept the coupons? and that the reason they are distributing coupons is to offer their customers a discount in products at their own store?

What if the store is distributing coupons to customers as part of a promotion for a sister business? (e.g., the coupons are distributed at store A to be redeemed for discounted products at store B which is owned by the same family.)

Although (B) can be selected via process of elimination, I did not think that this met the level of provability that is normally associated with MBT questions.

SO, what am I missing?

[tommywallach]

Hey Daniel,

I think it is not realistic to say that a store that distributes coupons would be distributing them for some other store. It's like reading "Recently, a company decided to put some advertisements on TV," and then saying that maybe the advertisements were for some business other than their own. It's way too much of a stretch.

-t

[shkim121]

I think (A) is not inferrable...because consumers can save money if they purchase coupon-discounted products only.

They may not save or spend even more if they purchase other high-priced products together with the coupon-discount products.

[vincentiswaiting]

I think (A) is not inferrable...because consumers can save money if they purchase coupon-discounted products only.

They may not save or spend even more if they purchase other high-priced products together with the coupon-discount products.

After seeing all of the interpretations above, finally you got the core!

[547494985]

hi, everyone, nice discussion. I have a question. Is "inference" question the same thing as "must be true" question? I always thought inference allow a little leap from the stimulus. and is "inference" different from "most supported by" questions? if there is, is this difference lies in degree?

[tommywallach]

Nope. They're all the same! (No leap at all, or on the most horrible questions, a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny leap.)

-t

[johnlwolf91]

I think there's an easier way to explain away (A). The answer states that consumers who redeem coupons save little/no money, but does not provide who the comparative (control) group is. If we are to assume that the comparative group is costumers who shop at non-coupon distributing stores, we may be able to make the inference that the two groups are paying approximately the same for the item. However, if a consumer was going to buy an item at a store that issues coupons regardless of whether or not they had the coupon, then a coupon could potentially save them a fair amount of money. Since (A) does not tell us which group we are comparing coupon users against, it cannot be inferred.

[jrnlsn.nelson]

(B) This is just a restatement of what the passage said (See above).-t

Thanks for the post Tommy. But, where in the passage does it say anything about "higher prices on certain products (as is stated in B)"? I went with (A), as this was my problem with (B). This is an inference question, and as you stated above, inference questions are simply must be true questions. So the correct answer choice must have information in it that was in the passage. We're not permitted to make any logical leaps, and the LSAT is very consistent with this when it comes to MBT questions. Yet, in the passage it says "...retail stores must pass it on to consumers." How can you infer that they pass this expense on to consumers by increasing the price of products?

They don't have to pass the expense on to consumers by only increasing the price of certain products. Instead they could, for example, increase the monthly cost of their store credit card, or they could increase the cost of warranties that they give for their products, or they could reduce the profit that they give to their shareholders. You could go on and on. So, I still don't see how (B) is better than (A). (A)'s great! It even uses the soft "many," which helps to qualify it and make it a better answer. I'm stumped.

[jrnlsn.nelson]

Nope. They're all the same! (No leap at all, or on the most horrible questions, a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny leap.)

-t

What about "most strongly supported" question types? I thought the LSAT writers allowed a tiny leap on these?

For example, in Q22 - Section 3 - Test 64 you have to make a tiny leap in order to arrive at the correct answer. I was totally stumped by this one, until ohthatpatrick mentioned that you're allotted tiny logical leaps on these questions.

[zdlsat]

I think I have a way to explain this question, and you guys could tell me if I got this question right.

So, we can say, here are two store, Bj's and costco. Bj's has coupons, costco doesn't. They all have products, A, B, C, D, E.

COSTCO price: A $100 B $100 C $100 D $100 E $100
BJ's have same price as costco without distributing coupons. However,

"...without reducing profit, retail stores must pass it on to consumers"
&
"... on certain products charge more for their products, on average, than other retail store charge for the same products..."

Bj's have coupon for product A, so prices for these products could be:
A(the one has coupon) $1 B$100 C$200 D$200 E$200


let's see answers,
A) consumers could save a lot if they ONLY buy PRODUCT A, the one has coupon. OR, they can spend more if they buy all products. We can not infer "many save a little". All consumers could save a lot or spend more. WRONG

B) "... by charging higher prices for certain products" YES! If average is higher, there must be at least one product coming with a higher price. As shown above, Product C D E have higher price. Let's keep it for now.

C) "... not significantly lower, on average, than..." the profit could be more than other store. Shown in example upthere. Meanwhile, "...without reducing profit, retail stores must pass it on to consumers", we can infer that the profit is not reduced. WRONG.

D) We can not infer anything about stores that do not use coupon. WRONG.

E) "...charged for a good for which a retail store offers a coupon..." hmm... as shown above, Product B has a same price in two store. The stem says "...charge more for their products, on average, than other retail store ..." which doesn't mean EVERY good has a higher price. WRONG.


I didn't get this question right for the first time, because

for answer C, All I thought is, that, since store is gonna pass the expense to consumers, the profit couldn't be significantly lower, but I didn't think about profit could be more.

for answer E, it says "...charged for a good for which a retail store offers a coupon..." I thought " a good" here means a certain good, not EVERY good. So I choose E at first. After reading discussion above, I realise that " a good" here means every good, which is def wrong.


Am I thinking this question right? So in LSAT, some general term, like "a good" here, means every and can apply to all elements?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, the way (E) is phrased, it's a universal.

"A cheetah with a broken leg will be faster than an Olympic runner with two healthy legs"
is a universal about all situations in which you pit a cheetah with a bum leg against an Olympic runner.

Part of that is the "a cheetah", part of that is from "WILL BE". It's definite, thus conditional certainty.

CAN BE, by contrast, would allow you to think "is this EVER true?"

Great explanation overall --- loved the numerical examples.

But for (C), we're not eliminating it because the profits could be higher. That AGREES with (C).

Higher profits are "not significantly lower" than another store's profits.

The only way to get rid of (C) is to recognize that the profits of coupon-using stores COULD be significantly lower, on average, than those of non-coupon-using stores.

It wouldn't be the practice of using coupons that would make their profits much lower, but it could still be true.

Maybe the types of stores that are most likely to use coupons are also those with bad real estate, low traffic of customers, disgusting store conditions, etc.

If we picked (C), we would be focusing only on COUPONS as a method of raising/lowering profits.

But there could easily be some coincidental trait of COUPON-USING stores that makes them usually less profitable.

=====

as per the question hanging from previous posts
"properly inferred" is akin to "must be true"
"most strongly supported" is allowed to be slightly farther from must be true, but Tommy was expressing that you approach those questions with a similar mindset:
Let me look for the answer that seems like it must be true, and if I have to live with a baby step away from PROOF, I'll live with it.

[kyuya]

I think the difficulty of this questions stems from the bit of ambiguity inherent in the language of the terms "in general" and "on average". I will elaborate below.

Point 1 : many consumers redeem coupons at stores to save money. Okay, simple enough.
Point 2: IN GENERAL, stores that give out these coupons as a way of lowering prices actually charge more for their products ON AVERAGE than retail stores charge for the same products, even after the coupon is accounted for.

I think Point 2 is where some may get a bit confused. So lets break down what it even really means.

"In general" is key to understand. So what can we infer from this sentence? Some stores, when they give out coupons, charge more for their products that other stores do, even after you get that coupon discount.. but some may not do this. In other words, there could be stores that provide a discount on their items that is NOT accounted for by heightened prices otherwise, so you may actually be getting a good deal at these places. But there are other places where your discount isn't so much of a discount because the prices are already sky high.

But why would these stores give out coupons if their prices are already sky high? Whats the point then of giving us these coupons? Well, its business.

Point 3: And because it is a business, and coupons are costly, this cost needs to be accounted for. Thats why some of these stores have such sky high prices to such a degree that even when we use their discounts, they are still costing us waay more than another store might.

On to the questions.

(A) This cannot be inferred. Remember how "in general" makes the language really vague, so its hard to draw inferences? All we know is that SOME places have such high prices that their coupons aren't that great - but some might. So can we really say MANY do not save money? And furthermore, if someone only shops at the expensive place, can we really say they aren't saving money? In the context of that store, sure they are saving money. But little do they know if they went to the other grocery stores perhaps they would have saved a lot more.

(B) This is a good answer because it doesn't use such strong language and is supported by the stim. "generally" compensate - yep, look at the last two sentences of this stimulus. This is corroborated.

(C) We can't say anything about overall profits. What do we know about profits of stores that use coupons vs those that do not? Nothing. We only know some stores are more expensive than others but it is entirely possible that either store could be more profitable than the other solely based on the information given to us in the stimulus.

(D) We don't know this. We only really speak about one expense that is passed on to customers. This goes beyond scope because its very possible there is a multitude of expenses passed on to consumers that is inherent in running a store.

(E) Again, much like (C), this answer choice is hoping we make a comparison we do not have information to make. There could be stores that have the same or even higher prices for a good's undiscounted price even though they do not offer coupons.

[nhahoyt]

I chose (C) because the stimulus directly states that stores that issue coupons charge higher prices to compensate. Since we're only comparing coupons vs no-coupons, there's no reason to think that a store that issues coupons would have significantly lower profits compared to one that doesn't.

I understand that you cannot assume anything about profits in general from the stimulus alone. I think what would make answer choice (C) correct would be if it mentioned coupons as being the reason for lower profits. For instance, if (C) said, "Coupons alone do not cause significantly lower profits for stores that use coupons, on average, than stores that do not use coupons," then that could be inferred.

The reason I eliminated (B) is because of the phrase "certain items." The stimulus says that stores that issue coupons have higher prices, "on average." To me, an average increase in prices does not imply that "certain items" will be higher in price, because the increase in prices could be distributed evenly across all products. If that were the case, "certain" would have to be taken to mean "all," which seems like a stretch of the word's meaning.

[snoopy]

The reason I eliminated (B) is because of the phrase "certain items." The stimulus says that stores that issue coupons have higher prices, "on average." To me, an average increase in prices does not imply that "certain items" will be higher in price, because the increase in prices could be distributed evenly across all products. If that were the case, "certain" would have to be taken to mean "all," which seems like a stretch of the word's meaning.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that the "on average" part applies to "average increase" when, really, it's referring to the average price. The "on average" mentioned in the stimulus is referring that the average prices for certain products are higher in retail stores that offer coupons vs. retail stores that don't. The certain products' prices are higher, on average, for the "same products."