eagerlawstudent
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 13
Joined: September 12th, 2010
 
 
 

Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by eagerlawstudent Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:39 pm

This question really seemed difficult because I really didn't understand the reasoning. So people paid less in price for the full fare tickets or did people pay less in the amount of full fare tickets sold?

HELP!
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT2
Thanks Received: 311
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 303
Joined: July 14th, 2009
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by ManhattanPrepLSAT2 Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:43 pm

The author makes what seems to be a pretty darn valid argument:

1. Full fare price for a ticket is the same this year as it was last year (setting aside all the distractions such as inflation / constant dollars etc).
2. A year ago, half the people bought full price, and 1/2 at discount.
3. This year, 10% buy at full price, and 90% at a discount.

Therefore, average price paid this year lower than average price last year.

This argument seems sound, but can you think of a way in which the three premises don't add up the author's conclusion?

What if the discount offered last year took 99% off the price of the ticket, and the one offered this year takes 1% off the full fare price? If that's the case, the fact that more people are paying a discount price wouldn't necessarily mean that people are paying a lower average price.

I know the above scenario with the 99% discount is unlikely, but it proves a point -- in using the % of people who get a discount to try to prove something about average price, the author is assuming that the discounts are of a similar value. If they are, then you could indeed say that, since more people are paying a lower price for sure, the average for this year is definitely lower. (B) provides such an assumption.

Hope that helps! Please follow up if you have additional questions.
 
zaidjawed
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 15
Joined: October 11th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by zaidjawed Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:13 pm

Hey Guys,
I would be very appreciative if someone could verify my reasoning here. Here goes:

In brief, the core of this argument deals with the price and corresponding proportions of the discount fare tickets. It then goes onto conclude about the "average" price paid as a result of the re-proportioning of discount fare tickets relative to full fare tickets.

Now, getting to the answer choices:

1) A, C and E were fairly straightforward to eliminate.

2) However, I did go back and forth between B and D and finally chose B after spending a chunk of time I wasn't comfortable with at all.

In my head, the conclusion presented me with a sort of distortion with regard to the interpretation of the average price payed by each individual. This distortion plays out well in the following example.


Consider the following scenario:

By the way, the arrangement of my columns and rows for both the scenarios have been thrown out of whack by the system. "Discount fare" and "full price fare" represent columns and all the numbers shown should fall under these columns. Likewise, "No of people", "price payed by each" and "total" represent rows.

ASSUMPTIONS:
1)
Number of passengers=100 ( I chose to come up with a passenger count just to make myself feel comfortable with a number, albeit, I could have just used proportions...0.5 and 0.9)

2) Full fare price=$1000

Scenario 1) A year ago with a 50/50 distribution

Discount Fare Full Fare
No of people 50 50
Price payed by each 500 1000
Total 25000 50000

So average price per customer =(total earnings/total no of people) = (75000/100)= 750 $ a ticket.

AFTER INVOKING B) which says the discount price ticket costs "about" the same, I didn't assume it to be saying that the initial hypothetical price of 500$ was the ceiling. I interpreted it to mean that it was around the same ballpark. So, I assumed $501.

Scenario 2) Today with a 90/10 distribution

Discount Fare Full Fare
No of people 90 10
Price payed by each 501 1000
Total 45090 10000

So average price per customer =(total earnings/total no of people) = (55090/100)= 550.9 $ a ticket.

So now, I receive an average that is about 250 $ less than the previous average. I would have normally stopped here and called it a day but then it hit me.

MY RESULT MAY HAVE VERY WELL CONTRADICTED THE SAME ANSWER CHOICE I USED TO PROVE IT!
Either my assumption of the "ceiling" (and therefore my understanding of answer choice B) was wrong or I don't understand averages! (or both :lol: )

If you look at scenario 2, people on average are paying higher than the initial 500$ because "most" 90% are paying 1$ more per ticket. Do you see where I am getting at here? Everything I have just done is entirely exclusive of what each individual may actually perceive(likewise in reality) to be paying. The final result serves as a sort of distortion because it may tell you that people are paying 250 $ less on average per ticket but indeed each individual is actually shelling out more (1$ more).

To complicate things for myself even further, in the midst of writing this, I am starting to see that maybe this isn't a contradiction? Maybe on AVERAGE they pay less but individually they might just be paying more? Interestingly, I could go from 501 to 650 and still have an average that's less than the previous average. This obviously is the result of the minuscule effect the full fare coach proportion has on the average. But then answer choice B's "costs about the same" goes out the window!

However, one can reason by saying that it is still sufficient to prove the conclusion by saying that the price is in and around the same price it used to be. However, If my calculation is indeed correct, then i suppose B's claim about being around the same cost need not be necessary.

I am probably going to confuse everyone who is going to read this. I sound like I'm manic!

By the way, the arrangement of my columns and rows for both the scenarios have been thrown out of whack. "Discount fare" and "full price fare" represent columns and all the numbers shown should fall under these columns. Likewise, "No of people", "price payed by each" and "total" represent rows.
 
mkd000
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 38
Joined: March 14th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by mkd000 Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:39 pm

just to confirm, the conclusion is not guaranteed if the number of tickets sold is different this year as compared to last year, but the discount price is the same, is this correct? I understood (D) to be saying that the above assertion is the sufficient assumption. An example of why this would not work:

$10 = full price, $5 = discount

Last year: 10 tickets sold. ($10x5) + ($5x5) = 75/10 = $7.5 (average amount paid).
This year: 100 tickets sold ($10x10) + ($5x90) = 550/100 = $5.5 (average amount paid)

because this case shows that average paid last year > average paid this year, (D) is not the sufficient assumption because this case did not guarantee the result (conclusion)

Feedback please
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by ohthatpatrick Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:10 am

I'm confused --- I think you might be thinking the conclusion says the opposite of what it says.

The conclusion: today's avg ticket < last year's average ticket

You just proved
last year's avg ticket > today's avg ticket

Those are saying the same thing, right?

(btw, though, the number of tickets sold will always be irrelevant to the math in this argument --- If you have the ratio/proportion of discount to full fare for both years and the price of discount vs. full fare, you have enough info to calculate average price ... With a 9:1 ratio of $5 discount to $10 full fare, you'll always get $5.50, no matter how many people go into that 9:1 ratio)
 
renata.gomez
Thanks Received: 1
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 44
Joined: December 27th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by renata.gomez Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:59 am

Hi,

Just thought I'd check my reasoning!

B would be correct over D because if the discount prices are different, then you cant compare it as easily... and furthermore, D would just be a premise booster?

someone please let me know if these would be effective reasons for choosing B

Thank you!
User avatar
 
ManhattanPrepLSAT1
Thanks Received: 1909
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: October 07th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:54 pm

renata.gomez Wrote:Hi,

Just thought I'd check my reasoning!

B would be correct over D because if the discount prices are different, then you cant compare it as easily... and furthermore, D would just be a premise booster?

someone please let me know if these would be effective reasons for choosing B

Thank you!

Hi Renata, I think you have it right for answer choice (B). Without knowing the discount price last year and the discount price this year, we couldn't discuss the average ticket price. Imagine the following:

Last Year
Full-Fare Ticket: $150
Discount Ticket: ?

This Year
Full-Fare Ticket: $150
Discount Ticket: ?

While (B) doesn't tell us the exact price of the discount tickets, it does say that the discount price is the same for both years. So long as the discount price is lower than the full-fare price (a reasonable expectation) since more tickets are sold at the discount price this year than last year, the average price will be lower this year than last.

(D) is out of scope. This would address the profitability of the flight, but not the average price paid for a ticket by passengers.

Hope that helps!
 
KippoD672
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: December 25th, 2019
 
 
 

Re: bookkeeping services cost

by KippoD672 Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:57 am

zaidjawed Wrote:Hey Guys,
I would be very appreciative if someone could verify my reasoning here. Here goes:

In brief, the core of this argument deals with the price and corresponding proportions of the discount fare tickets. It then goes onto conclude about the "average" price paid as a result of the re-proportioning of discount fare tickets relative to full fare tickets.
Bookkeeping services cost yourbooksontime Virginia.
Now, getting to the answer choices:
1) A, C and E were fairly straightforward to eliminate.
2) However, I did go back and forth between B and D and finally chose B after spending a chunk of time I wasn't comfortable with at all.
In my head, the conclusion presented me with a sort of distortion with regard to the interpretation of the average price payed by each individual. This distortion plays out well in the following example.
Consider the following scenario:
By the way, the arrangement of my columns and rows for both the scenarios have been thrown out of whack by the system. "Discount fare" and "full price fare" represent columns and all the numbers shown should fall under these columns. Likewise, "No of people", "price payed by each" and "total" represent rows.

ASSUMPTIONS:
1)
Number of passengers=100 ( I chose to come up with a passenger count just to make myself feel comfortable with a number, albeit, I could have just used proportions...0.5 and 0.9)

2) Full fare price=$1000

Scenario 1) A year ago with a 50/50 distribution

Discount Fare Full Fare
No of people 50 50
Price payed by each 500 1000
Total 25000 50000

So average price per customer =(total earnings/total no of people) = (75000/100)= 750 $ a ticket.

AFTER INVOKING B) which says the discount price ticket costs "about" the same, I didn't assume it to be saying that the initial hypothetical price of 500$ was the ceiling. I interpreted it to mean that it was around the same ballpark. So, I assumed $501.

Scenario 2) Today with a 90/10 distribution

Discount Fare Full Fare
No of people 90 10
Price payed by each 501 1000
Total 45090 10000

So average price per customer =(total earnings/total no of people) = (55090/100)= 550.9 $ a ticket.

So now, I receive an average that is about 250 $ less than the previous average. I would have normally stopped here and called it a day but then it hit me.

MY RESULT MAY HAVE VERY WELL CONTRADICTED THE SAME ANSWER CHOICE I USED TO PROVE IT!
Either my assumption of the "ceiling" (and therefore my understanding of answer choice B) was wrong or I don't understand averages! (or both :lol: )

If you look at scenario 2, people on average are paying higher than the initial 500$ because "most" 90% are paying 1$ more per ticket. Do you see where I am getting at here? Everything I have just done is entirely exclusive of what each individual may actually perceive(likewise in reality) to be paying. The final result serves as a sort of distortion because it may tell you that people are paying 250 $ less on average per ticket but indeed each individual is actually shelling out more (1$ more).

To complicate things for myself even further, in the midst of writing this, I am starting to see that maybe this isn't a contradiction? Maybe on AVERAGE they pay less but individually they might just be paying more? Interestingly, I could go from 501 to 650 and still have an average that's less than the previous average. This obviously is the result of the minuscule effect the full fare coach proportion has on the average. But then answer choice B's "costs about the same" goes out the window!

However, one can reason by saying that it is still sufficient to prove the conclusion by saying that the price is in and around the same price it used to be. However, If my calculation is indeed correct, then i suppose B's claim about being around the same cost need not be necessary.

I am probably going to confuse everyone who is going to read this. I sound like I'm manic!

By the way, the arrangement of my columns and rows for both the scenarios have been thrown out of whack. "Discount fare" and "full price fare" represent columns and all the numbers shown should fall under these columns. Likewise, "No of people", "price payed by each" and "total" represent rows.



Yes, everything is fair
 
QIAOH648
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 15
Joined: December 14th, 2019
 
 
 

Re: Q20 - The price of a full-fare coach

by QIAOH648 Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:38 pm

Here is what I understand. I focus on the DISCOUNT tickets that passengers bought from a year ago to today.

There are 2 various coach tickets: Full-fare tickets and discount tickets. The first sentence said that Full-fare tickets did not change from last year and today. I did not look the answer talk about full-fare ones. I eliminate A and C.

D is not correct because average number of coach passengers include ones who pay both full-fare ticket (not issue in this question), and discount tickets - we have to focus on the discount ones here. Eliminate D.

E is out of scope because the stimuli does not focus on the criteria which were used to buy any tickets.

The stimuli said 50% were discount a year ago, whereas 90% were discount today. I saw the problem here, how come the discount tickets increased from 50% (a year ago) to 90% (today). There must be some gaps here. I understand that in order to make conclusion valid (people pay less today), there must be either more people to buy the discount tickets today than a year ago, but we need to make the price/cost of discount tickets constant (not increase or decrease. Therefore, I chose answer B. That's a math problem. The logic is straightforward: Keep the price of discount tickets constant, and increase the cost of the discount ones.