Q23

[clarafok]

hello,

i'm not really seeing why D is the answer. i thought what Garber was talking about was that when a new bulb is prized, the original bulb becomes very expensive because it's not available. and when it becomes available, the price of the original bulb drops. why is D the answer? and what has it got to do with selling copies at an affordable price?

thanks in advance!

[giladedelman]

Ah, you're misinterpreting Garber's explanation somewhat.

Garber argues that the tulip episode was not actually a speculative bubble. When a new type of tulip was developed, its original bulb sold at a very high price because it was the only one! But then, as more and more bulbs became available -- because that's what flowers do once you plant them: they reproduce -- the price per bulb would naturally decrease. Garber further argues that this doesn't mean that the high price of the original bulb was irrational, because you could make a lot of money by selling the millions of offspring of that bulb, even if the price of each individual one is lower.

That's why answer (D) is a good analogy. The publisher pays a lot of money for the rights to the new novel, because like a new tulip bulb, a new novel is unique. Then he sells copies -- in other words, books -- at a much lower price. Was it irrational for him to spend so much on the novel? No, because he can make money by selling many copies. In fact, that's exactly how the publishing industry works, and it's nearly the same as the tulip example, as told by Garber: spend a lot of money for a new tulip bulb, profit by selling the "millions of bulbs descendent from the original."

For example, maybe I spend 10,000 dollars for the tulip bulb/novel. Then I sell each new bulb/book for 10 dollars. Well, that's a much lower price, but if I sell over a thousand bulbs/books, I can make a profit!

Does that answer your question?

[mcarmody]

I'm still confused.
I picked C because I understood the argument to be that due to the increased availability of the new flowers; the price dropped. (a la basic supply and demand laws). So wouldn't C work then? Or is it because the motorcycle parts themselves aren't unique and could theoretically also been purchased (before the cheap substitutes) where as only one person can hold the rights to the novel? Did I just totally miss out on the "unique" condition of this argument?

[eunjung.shin]

I'm still confused.
I picked C because I understood the argument to be that due to the increased availability of the new flowers; the price dropped. (a la basic supply and demand laws). So wouldn't C work then? Or is it because the motorcycle parts themselves aren't unique and could theoretically also been purchased (before the cheap substitutes) where as only one person can hold the rights to the novel? Did I just totally miss out on the "unique" condition of this argument?

I picked C as well. I think C is not the answer because of "susbsisute parts". In Tulip case, Garber says that earnings derivable from the millions of bulbs descendent from the original bulbs can be very high" So the answer needs to talk about reproduction not substitues.

Can one of the teachers confirm this?

Thanks for your help!!

[giladedelman]

That's right! The point is that you buy the original flower/book for a high price, and then YOU make tons of copies from the original and sell those copies for a much lower price, with the goal of making money by selling many many copies.

Answer (C) is different because it's saying you buy the motorcycle parts, but then you get forced into selling them for way less money because some other substitute parts appear on the market, not copies that you made of your original purchase.

[AshleyL486]

bit late to the discussion but still a bit confused! I thought D captured the concept quite well but ultimately eliminated it in favour of C which I didn't really like because of the term shift from "low prices" to "affordable to nearly everyone." Just because something is affordable doesn't mean its inexpensive, right? Can someone explain why this is okay to overlook?

[Laura Damone]

Hi!

So, Gilad's explanation of C is really spot on. In the tulip situation, you are buying a "parent" bulb at a very high price, and then you cultivate a bunch of "descendant" bulbs that "command a very low price." You are the one making the "reproductions" and you can profit a great deal off of them as long as you sell a lot.

In C, you buy one box of parts, somebody ELSE makes a bunch of cheapo reproductions, and you have to offload your original box of parts at a much lower price than you purchased it for. In this case, you lose money on the deal, so it is not analogous to the tulip situation.

In D, you buy a book for a lot of money, then make a bunch of copies that you sell at an affordable price. You are making the reproductions, and you can profit a great deal as long as you sell a bunch. A match!

I would also argue that there is no real term shift between the passage and D. While it's true that "affordable" and "inexpensive" are not the same, they don't have to be for this answer to work.

The passage tells us that descendant bulbs "command a very low price." If something commands a very low price, is it "affordable to nearly everyone?" Probably so, in the context of this question, because we're not making a factual inference; we're coming up with an analogy. As long as the relationship of high-priced original to low-priced copies you made yourself is the same in both situations, the exact terms used don't have to be a spot on perfect match.

A few takeaways here: When investigating a possible term shift in RC, don't ask yourself "are these two terms identical in meaning?" Instead, ask yourself "does the term used in the passage imply the term used in the answer?" As long as it does, you're in the clear. And, in an Analogy question, focus first and foremost on the overall structure. If an answer doesn't match the structure, eliminate. If you are left with multiple contenders, then get into the nitty gritty of possible minor term shifts. But in this one you never need to go that deep into D because it's the only one with a matching structure.

Hope this helps!