Q25 - The more demand there is for something

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Used cars less than 10 years old are usually easier to sell than those 10 yrs or older.
Evidence: Things in more demand are easier to sell. Used cars less than 10 yrs old are in demand by junkyards, but cars 10 yrs or older are not in demand by junkyards.

Answer Anticipation:
Why is the author only talking about demand, as it relates to junkyards? Don't we need to assess how much demand there is for cars younger than 10 vs. older than 10 based on other possible segments of the buying population?
The author seems to assume that other types of buyers don't matter, or that the preferences of junkyards are representative of the preferences of buyers in general.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) TOO EXTREME: "not influenced by ANY other factors". The author's conclusion is hedged … it says "generally easier", so he doesn't necessarily believe that demand is the only variable that matters.

(B) TOO EXTREME: "ALL" used cars are sold? Please.

(C) TOO EXTREME: "In general" this is true? The author might think that the older a baseball card is, the easier it is to sell.

(D) This argument isn't about determining a selling price. It's about how easy they are to sell.

(E) YES! This addresses our central concern of "why are you only telling me about the demand for cars, as it relates to junkyards?" The author's evidence is about the demand for the parts of newer cars vs. older cars. The author's conclusion is about the overall salability of these cars. So the author must be assuming that her conclusion is largely a function of her evidence.

Takeaway/Pattern: If we negate (E), and we learn that the salability of the older cars is NOT importantly connected to demand for their parts, then it's easy to argue against this author's conclusion. We would say that older cars are highly sellable given that they have much lower price tags, so frugal car buyers are excited to buy them AND USE THEM.

#officialexplanation

[MingL143]

What do you categorize the argument? Conditional or Correlation & Causation? The reason that I asked is that it sets a different mentality to work on a necessary assumption. If it is first one, I will just anticipate an answer and look for the missing link (or new info); If it is the latter one, I will think of an objection to the argument and find an answer and negate it.

[ohthatpatrick]

I know a lot of LSAT minds are keen to break down everything into the holy trilogy of Conditional, Comparative, or Causal, but I truthfully don't think in those terms.

I just try to notice missing links / term shifts, and if I find one then I have a strong suspicion that the problem is testing THAT related assumption.

If not, I pretend to be Opposing Counsel and think about how I would argue the anti-conclusion.

And often I have to do both because I'm not sure which direction the answers will go.

This argument has all three of the holy trilogy:

CONDITIONAL
if more demand, then easier to sell
if used car less than 10 yrs old, then junkyard will buy it

CAUSAL
a potential to resell the parts is what causes junkyards to buy these used cars
a lack of potential to resell the parts of older cars is what causes junkyards not to buy older cars

COMPARATIVE
Used cars under 10 yrs are easier to sell than are used cars over 10 yrs.


If you were studying this argument for missing links, you would start from the conclusion: X is easier to sell than Y.

What do I know about X?
What do I know about Y?
Do I have a rule/law that says "if such-and-such, then easier to sell".

I know that
"if more demand, then easier to sell"
so the author is apparently assuming that there's more demand for X than for Y.

What do we know about X and Y?
Junkyards have more demand for X than they do for Y.

So what's a missing bridge idea?
"If junkyards have more demand for something, then there's more demand (overall) for that thing"

Would that prephrase help us select (E)? Probably not, but it is accurate.
Saying that "demand for older cars is largely about demand for parts" is related to the idea of "If junkyards don't want it, then there's little demand for it".

If I were reading the argument looking for potential objections, then I start from the anti-conclusion: Older used cars are usually easier to sell than newer used cars.

What premises would I have to argue my way around?
Older used cars would usually not be bought by a junkyard, whereas newer used cars would.

Okay, so in order to make an objection, I need to think, "GIVEN THAT junkyards are way less likely to buy older used cars than newer used cars, HOW COULD I ARGUE that older used cars are easier to sell than newer used cars?"

Once I frame that idea, I would think, "What if someone besides a junkyard wants this older used car? Maybe these older cars aren't as popular to a junkyard, because a junkyard's priority is disassembling the car and making money of its parts. But maybe older used cars are more popular when it comes to selling them to other people, because people often want the cheapest car they can buy. A 1995 Honda Civic might not be worth much to a junkyard, but if an 18 year old can buy it for $1000 and start driving, that would be easier to sell than a 2009 Honda Civic that might sell for $9000."

Would that put me in a good position to like (E)? Yeah, probably.

Since I've already thought through the lens of "what would make older cars EASIER to sell", my brain realized that they would be much cheaper to buy. So anyone looking to buy a used car for the sake of driving it would potentially be more likely to buy my cheaper 11 year old used car than to buy my much more expensive 5 year old used car.

Hope this helps.

[DPCTE4325]

I know a lot of LSAT minds are keen to break down everything into the holy trilogy of Conditional, Comparative, or Causal, but I truthfully don't think in those terms.

I just try to notice missing links / term shifts, and if I find one then I have a strong suspicion that the problem is testing THAT related assumption.

If not, I pretend to be Opposing Counsel and think about how I would argue the anti-conclusion.

And often I have to do both because I'm not sure which direction the answers will go.

This argument has all three of the holy trilogy:

CONDITIONAL
if more demand, then easier to sell
if used car less than 10 yrs old, then junkyard will buy it

CAUSAL
a potential to resell the parts is what causes junkyards to buy these used cars
a lack of potential to resell the parts of older cars is what causes junkyards not to buy older cars

COMPARATIVE
Used cars under 10 yrs are easier to sell than are used cars over 10 yrs.


If you were studying this argument for missing links, you would start from the conclusion: X is easier to sell than Y.

What do I know about X?
What do I know about Y?
Do I have a rule/law that says "if such-and-such, then easier to sell".

I know that
"if more demand, then easier to sell"
so the author is apparently assuming that there's more demand for X than for Y.

What do we know about X and Y?
Junkyards have more demand for X than they do for Y.

So what's a missing bridge idea?
"If junkyards have more demand for something, then there's more demand (overall) for that thing"

Would that prephrase help us select (E)? Probably not, but it is accurate.
Saying that "demand for older cars is largely about demand for parts" is related to the idea of "If junkyards don't want it, then there's little demand for it".

If I were reading the argument looking for potential objections, then I start from the anti-conclusion: Older used cars are usually easier to sell than newer used cars.

What premises would I have to argue my way around?
Older used cars would usually not be bought by a junkyard, whereas newer used cars would.

Okay, so in order to make an objection, I need to think, "GIVEN THAT junkyards are way less likely to buy older used cars than newer used cars, HOW COULD I ARGUE that older used cars are easier to sell than newer used cars?"

Once I frame that idea, I would think, "What if someone besides a junkyard wants this older used car? Maybe these older cars aren't as popular to a junkyard, because a junkyard's priority is disassembling the car and making money of its parts. But maybe older used cars are more popular when it comes to selling them to other people, because people often want the cheapest car they can buy. A 1995 Honda Civic might not be worth much to a junkyard, but if an 18 year old can buy it for $1000 and start driving, that would be easier to sell than a 2009 Honda Civic that might sell for $9000."

Would that put me in a good position to like (E)? Yeah, probably.

Since I've already thought through the lens of "what would make older cars EASIER to sell", my brain realized that they would be much cheaper to buy. So anyone looking to buy a used car for the sake of driving it would potentially be more likely to buy my cheaper 11 year old used car than to buy my much more expensive 5 year old used car.

Hope this helps.

Hey Patrick,

I see how negated E allows us to argue against the author's conclusion. But doesn't A do that as well, albeit less strongly? Negated A states "The salability of something is influenced by some factors other than the level of demand for it."

Well, as you mentioned, couldn't "cheaper cost" be a factor that influences the older car's salability? A seems to be the "broader" version of E?

Negated E says "the salability of cars that are ten years old or older does not necessarily depend on the level of demand for their parts." So it could also depends on cheaper costs instead. How would we decide between A and E when using the conclusion objection method?

[ohthatpatrick]

The way you decide between them is what you already mentioned:
(A) is more strongly worded than (E), so (A) is more dangerous.

And when you negate them (because of that difference in wording),
(E) becomes a stronger objection than (A).

The author doesn't need to think that salability (of ANYTHING, since this claim isn't restricted to "cars that are ten years old or older", as E is) is 100% influenced by demand and 0% influenced by everything else.

That's a crazy extreme claim. One thing that comes to mind is "supply".
The author would probably say that the salability of something is influenced by supply as well as by demand.

(E) is more focused on this actual argument, and it doesn't have over the top wording "100% determined by demand". (E) just says "it's largely a function of demand".

Since the conclusion is only saying that these old used cars will GENERALLY be harder to sell, he's not making any categorical, sweeping assumptions.

Hope this helps.

[VanessaG743]

Can someone explain how C could be negated and eliminated? I now see why it's too broad to be a required assumption, but I think I negated it incorrectly and that led me astray. My attempted negation of it was: "In general, the older something is, it is not more difficult to sell" --> i.e., in general, older cars are easier or the same level of difficulty to sell than newer cars. Can someone help me understand how the correct negation of C would not ruin the argument? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

Can someone explain how C could be negated and eliminated? I now see why it's too broad to be a required assumption, but I think I negated it incorrectly and that led me astray. My attempted negation of it was: "In general, the older something is, it is not more difficult to sell" --> i.e., in general, older cars are easier or the same level of difficulty to sell than newer cars. Can someone help me understand how the correct negation of C would not ruin the argument? Thanks!

Sure! I think your negation is correct, but when you summarized it with "i.e....." you changed it. What answer choice C talks about is "something," not cars. So it could be true that, in general, older things are not more difficult to sell, but older cars ARE more difficult to sell. Meaning it doesn't necessarily hurt the argument.

Hope this helps.