Q19 - Renting cars from dealerships

[bnuvincent]

I've figured out why A,C,D are wrong, but have some problems with B.
B seems out of scope for me, besides, both B and E only deals with the taxi fee, do we need to consider the possibility that the rental fee might vary?

Thanks~

[noah]

This is a tough problem! I'm glad you asked as a lot of students struggle with it.

The conclusion of this argument is that renting cars from local dealerships is more worthwhile for locals than for tourists. Why? Because tourists would have to figure out which ones offer rentals and pay for taxi rides between the airport and those dealerships.

We're looking to eliminate answers that strengthen that argument and choose the answer that does not.

(A) strengthens the argument because it shows that locals, unlike tourists will not have to pay for taxi rides to the dealerships.
(B) shows that it's better for tourists to go with a national company since with those companies, the tourists will not have to pay for a taxi (unlike with the local companies).
(C) shows that it's difficult for tourists to learn about local car dealership rates.
(D) shows that it's easy for locals to find out which dealerships offer good rates.

(E) seems like it may strengthen, however if we look closely, it establishes that for locals a taxi to a local place and a national place are potentially the same price, or perhaps that it's more expensive to go to a national place. "No less expensive" means just as expensive or more!

Does that clear it up?

[bnuvincent]

Thx, it helps a lot.

[fyami001]

Hi,
I have a question in general about "weaken questions" that was raised when I reviewed my work for this problem. Is the only way to "weaken" arguments by attacking assumptions which offer counterclaims, as this question did?

For this problem in specific, it provided additional information which disproved the fact that local residents do not in fact pay less to travel to local dealership, which weakens the conclusion that local residents benefit more from local dealerships than tourists?

[Raiderblue17]

You can weaken an argument any way. You NORMALLY weaken an argument by attacking the conclusion, but sometimes, the conclusion: like this, actually establishes two fact sets;

Here we have:

1. Dealerships are better for locals
2. National chains are better for Tourists.

we take the information in the paragraph for fact here, and we are looking for an answer choice that strengthens each conclusion EXCEPT one. This is NOT the opposite, we are not NECESSARILY looking to WEAKEN.

So:

Fact 1: is agreed upon by BOTH choice A and D
Fact 2: is agreed upon by both Choice B and C

Choice E says that you have to take a taxi ride, and they could be the same or even more expensive. So there can be zero benefit for going local.

If this doesn't help please send me a personal message so I can help clarify

[shaynfernandez]

You can weaken an argument any way. You NORMALLY weaken an argument by attacking the conclusion, but sometimes, the conclusion: like this, actually establishes two fact sets;

Here we have:

1. Dealerships are better for locals
2. National chains are better for Tourists.

I don't think the conclusion establishes that a national rental firm is more for a tourist. Just because we know that dealerships are more beneficial for locals than tourists doesn't mean tourists are better off with national firms. There is no such principle established in the argument that says "if dealerships are better for locals then national firms are better for tourists".

I understand E can either hurt the argument or be stagnate, hence it's correct.

But I can't say I agree that saying "tourist don't have to pay for tax rides to national rentals" has anything to do with let alone strengthen a conclusion that says "renting from a dealership is more worthwhile for locals than tourists"

That has absolutely no effect..

[Acing LSAT]

I don't understand why C and D are out

the statement to support was it is generally more worthwhile for locals to rent from dealer ship than it is for tourists.

C is not supporting the idea that is more worthwhile. once a tourist finds a dealership on their own then it is worthwhile (excluding the cost of the taxi) but why is the not knowing which ones rent effect the worthwhileness of the rental?

D is similar locals knowing who to rent from does not effect how worthwhile it is. it just makes the process easier.

[natasha119]

Choice E says that you have to take a taxi ride, and they could be the same or even more expensive. So there can be zero benefit for going local.

I'm struggling with one portion of answer choice E--I understand why E does not strengthen if the taxi ride were more expensive, but:
If the taxi ride is the same, isn't there still a benefit for going local because the car rental is cheaper at the local dealership?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Tough question, and some really interesting thoughts being raised in this thread in response to it!

I think one thing that makes this question so tough is that the conclusion is actually a somewhat complex idea - sorting out what the conclusion is actually saying is critical for our understanding of the argument core here. Let's take a moment to unravel that.

The conclusion is a comparison, but it's really a comparison between tourists and locals. Now, what are we comparing? Who gets a *better deal* at the dealership (as compared to what they would get at the national rental firm). We are told up front that dealerships are cheaper, so that sounds good for both locals AND tourists. But if there are some things that affect tourists and locals differently, that will change how good a deal each group is really getting.

For example, let's say it's cheaper to buy a certain jacket from XYZ Outlet Store than it is to buy it from XYZ Regular Store. However, my friend Bob lives next door to XYZ Outlet, while I live 100 miles away, and have to take an expensive train to get there. It's possible that even accounting for the cost of the train ticket and time spent traveling that the outlet will still be a better deal for me than the regular store, but I won't experience as much savings as my friend Bob does. In other words, the difference between Regular and Outlet for Bob is more meaningful than the difference is for me - Outlet shopping is more worthwhile for him!

So, it's NOT correct to say that:

1. Dealerships are better for locals
2. National chains are better for Tourists.

Dealerships could be the best deal for both groups, but the conclusion tells me that locals are getting the bigger difference in comparison to what they would get at the national rental firm.

So, the core is this:

PREMISE:
1) (+) dealerships are less $$ than national rental
2) (-) tourists have to figure out which dealerships rent
3) (-) tourists pay for long taxi rides to dealerships
CONCLUSION: Locals get a better deal at dealerships than tourists do, as compared to what each group would get at national rental

I marked the first premise as '+' - the dealership being cheaper is good for both groups - a plus in the 'dealership' column. The other premises appear to be negatives for the tourists - but we should have some immediate questions.

If the tourists have to pay for long taxi rides to dealerships, that sucks, but what if they have to pay for long taxi rides to EVERYTHING? Then this wouldn't actually affect which option is a better deal! If I have to take an expensive train to BOTH the outlet store AND the regular store, then it doesn't affect which one is the better deal for me. (B) strengthens by clarifying that the taxi issue is WORSE if tourists go for dealerships, tarnishing what might have been a sweet deal.

(C) strengthens in a similar way - if tourists could easily get the info on dealerships from travel agents, then the second premise would no longer matter - that's not a real obstacle to dealerships. Take that away, and it clarifies that premise #2 is a meaningful distinction between dealerships and national rental for tourists.

(B) and (C) focus on the tourists, giving us things that make the dealerships less awesome for tourists in comparison to national rental firms. If there's nothing that sours the dealership for tourists, then it would seem that both tourists and locals should be getting the same sweet deal - but the conclusion claimed that locals have it better.

(A) and (D) focus on the locals - because remember, our conclusion was actually about the comparison of tourists and locals, specifically that locals get a sweeter deal. If locals are hamstrung by the same issues that tourists are facing, then who knows who gets the sweetest deal!?

(A) targets the taxi situation - while tourists pay for expensive taxis to dealerships, locals get picked up and dropped off for free! Locals are definitely getting a sweeter deal here.

(D) targets the 'knowledge of dealerships' issue. If locals magically already know which dealerships offer rentals, then they have to do less leg-work to secure their sweet deal. Once again, locals come out with a better deal.

Finally, let's tackle (E):

First, it's saying that for locals, dealership-taxis are NOT LESS expensive than national-rental-taxis. That means there are two possibilities, equally likely (for all we know). Either dealership-taxis are MORE EXPENSIVE than national-rental-taxis, or they are THE SAME PRICE.

If dealership-taxis are more expensive for locals than national-rental-taxis, this would tarnish the sweet deal that locals get at the dealerships. This scenario would weaken the argument. Thus, even if the other possibility (equal cost) were to strengthen, this answer could either strengthen OR weaken, depending, and we wouldn't be able to label the answer a weakener OR a strengthener!!

But let's take a look at the equal cost scenario: if taxis are the same for locals no matter where they go, then taxis are simply a non-issue. This neither boosts their sweet deal, not tarnishes it. It simply does not matter.

If the taxi ride is the same, isn't there still a benefit for going local because the car rental is cheaper at the local dealership?

For an answer to strengthen, the benefit needs to come from the answer itself. The benefit you're using here is the benefit we already knew about, before getting to this answer.

It's like if I'm arguing that going to Olive Garden is cheaper than Chez Fancy. A gift card that I can use at BOTH restaurants doesn't strengthen my argument - it's irrelevant! Yes, Olive Garden may still be cheaper than Chez Fancy, but not because of the gift card. The gift card doesn't make a difference!

Here, if the taxi costs are the same, it doesn't affect the deal one way or the other.

So, if we dig deeper, we see that this answer choice can either weaken OR be irrelevant. In no case can it strengthen!

Really tough question here, and lots of good processing going on. Please let me know if this clears a few things up!

[weid247]

Tough question, and some really interesting thoughts being raised in this thread in response to it!

I think one thing that makes this question so tough is that the conclusion is actually a somewhat complex idea - sorting out what the conclusion is actually saying is critical for our understanding of the argument core here. Let's take a moment to unravel that.

The conclusion is a comparison, but it's really a comparison between tourists and locals. Now, what are we comparing? Who gets a *better deal* at the dealership (as compared to what they would get at the national rental firm). We are told up front that dealerships are cheaper, so that sounds good for both locals AND tourists. But if there are some things that affect tourists and locals differently, that will change how good a deal each group is really getting.

For example, let's say it's cheaper to buy a certain jacket from XYZ Outlet Store than it is to buy it from XYZ Regular Store. However, my friend Bob lives next door to XYZ Outlet, while I live 100 miles away, and have to take an expensive train to get there. It's possible that even accounting for the cost of the train ticket and time spent traveling that the outlet will still be a better deal for me than the regular store, but I won't experience as much savings as my friend Bob does. In other words, the difference between Regular and Outlet for Bob is more meaningful than the difference is for me - Outlet shopping is more worthwhile for him!

So, it's NOT correct to say that:

1. Dealerships are better for locals
2. National chains are better for Tourists.

Dealerships could be the best deal for both groups, but the conclusion tells me that locals are getting the bigger difference in comparison to what they would get at the national rental firm.

So, the core is this:

PREMISE:
1) (+) dealerships are less $$ than national rental
2) (-) tourists have to figure out which dealerships rent
3) (-) tourists pay for long taxi rides to dealerships
CONCLUSION: Locals get a better deal at dealerships than tourists do, as compared to what each group would get at national rental

I marked the first premise as '+' - the dealership being cheaper is good for both groups - a plus in the 'dealership' column. The other premises appear to be negatives for the tourists - but we should have some immediate questions.

If the tourists have to pay for long taxi rides to dealerships, that sucks, but what if they have to pay for long taxi rides to EVERYTHING? Then this wouldn't actually affect which option is a better deal! If I have to take an expensive train to BOTH the outlet store AND the regular store, then it doesn't affect which one is the better deal for me. (B) strengthens by clarifying that the taxi issue is WORSE if tourists go for dealerships, tarnishing what might have been a sweet deal.

(C) strengthens in a similar way - if tourists could easily get the info on dealerships from travel agents, then the second premise would no longer matter - that's not a real obstacle to dealerships. Take that away, and it clarifies that premise #2 is a meaningful distinction between dealerships and national rental for tourists.

(B) and (C) focus on the tourists, giving us things that make the dealerships less awesome for tourists in comparison to national rental firms. If there's nothing that sours the dealership for tourists, then it would seem that both tourists and locals should be getting the same sweet deal - but the conclusion claimed that locals have it better.

(A) and (D) focus on the locals - because remember, our conclusion was actually about the comparison of tourists and locals, specifically that locals get a sweeter deal. If locals are hamstrung by the same issues that tourists are facing, then who knows who gets the sweetest deal!?

(A) targets the taxi situation - while tourists pay for expensive taxis to dealerships, locals get picked up and dropped off for free! Locals are definitely getting a sweeter deal here.

(D) targets the 'knowledge of dealerships' issue. If locals magically already know which dealerships offer rentals, then they have to do less leg-work to secure their sweet deal. Once again, locals come out with a better deal.

Finally, let's tackle (E):

First, it's saying that for locals, dealership-taxis are NOT LESS expensive than national-rental-taxis. That means there are two possibilities, equally likely (for all we know). Either dealership-taxis are MORE EXPENSIVE than national-rental-taxis, or they are THE SAME PRICE.

If dealership-taxis are more expensive for locals than national-rental-taxis, this would tarnish the sweet deal that locals get at the dealerships. This scenario would weaken the argument. Thus, even if the other possibility (equal cost) were to strengthen, this answer could either strengthen OR weaken, depending, and we wouldn't be able to label the answer a weakener OR a strengthener!!

But let's take a look at the equal cost scenario: if taxis are the same for locals no matter where they go, then taxis are simply a non-issue. This neither boosts their sweet deal, not tarnishes it. It simply does not matter.

If the taxi ride is the same, isn't there still a benefit for going local because the car rental is cheaper at the local dealership?

For an answer to strengthen, the benefit needs to come from the answer itself. The benefit you're using here is the benefit we already knew about, before getting to this answer.

It's like if I'm arguing that going to Olive Garden is cheaper than Chez Fancy. A gift card that I can use at BOTH restaurants doesn't strengthen my argument - it's irrelevant! Yes, Olive Garden may still be cheaper than Chez Fancy, but not because of the gift card. The gift card doesn't make a difference!

Here, if the taxi costs are the same, it doesn't affect the deal one way or the other.

So, if we dig deeper, we see that this answer choice can either weaken OR be irrelevant. In no case can it strengthen!

Really tough question here, and lots of good processing going on. Please let me know if this clears a few things up!

I have a different idea.

The conclusion is “for local dealerships are better than national rents; for tourists dealership are not better than national rents”

A, dealerships offer free drop and pick up for local, strengthen the first part of the conclusion.

B, tourist rent a car from national rents almost never need pay taxi fee. Strengthen the second part of the conclusion.

C, tourists can not get the dealerships information, dealerships is not good, strengthen the second.

D, many local know low price of dealerships, dealerships better for local, strengthen the first part.

E, local to dealerships more expensive than to national rents, for local dealership is expensive, weaken the first part.

[JeremyK460]

So, the core is this:

PREMISE:
1) (+) dealerships are less $$ than national rental
2) (-) tourists have to figure out which dealerships rent
3) (-) tourists pay for long taxi rides to dealerships
CONCLUSION: Locals get a better deal at dealerships than tourists do, as compared to what each group would get at national rental

i could be wrong here, but i think your interpretation of the conclusion is over-specified.

stim's conclusion: renting from dealerships rather than nationals is generally more worthwhile for local residents than for tourists
your conclusion: locals get a better deal at dealerships than tourists do, as compared to what each group would get at national rental

you've conflated terms between the premise and conclusion...

premise mentions what has to happen in order to take advantage of the dealership rates
conclusion broadens out and says one is more worthwhile than the other