Q6 - Advertisement: At most jewelry stores

[ericha3535]

This question was fairly easy yet I just wanted to post up my analysis and get it checked out by LSAT gurus.
Maybe and just maybe, I may well be over analyzing such a simple stimulus but...

I couldn't help but notice that there was a slight change of scope in the argument, from talking about "quality" to "price." In the real world, higher quality means more expensive, of course. If I was actually focusing on this part of the argument, I was probably focusing on the wrong part of the argument right? (I anticipated that the AC would bridge the gap between those two terms... because I strongly believed that the first paragraph was definitely saying something along the line of "if you buy jewelry at the store, you are going to get ripped off")
After all, now I believe the core of the argument is about who decides and assess the quality of the jewelry.

[tommywallach]

Hey Ericha,

Some good thoughts here, but I definitely can give you some guidance. You mention the term "core" here, but you're not defining it the way we would, and I encourage you to switch over. For the LSAT, the core represents the Conclusion/Premise. Always start by isolating those pieces:

Conclusion: Diamonds at gem world = fair

Premise: Diamonds are certified in writing

Now, you'll notice I didn't include the fact that you might get ripped off at a store. That's because, as it turns out, it doesn't really relate to the argument! Watch!

A) Who cares about places other than Gem World?

B) Does experience in the field mean you're getting a fair price? Hardly! I can do something for 100 years and still rip people off.

C) If the gems are great, does that mean you're getting a fair price? Of course not!

D) This is irrelevant to fair prices at Gem World.

E) Aha! If the certifications are written by independent gem specialists, it's more likely I'll get a fair price.

Super fun, right? : )

-t

[sumukh09]

Hey Tommy,

How does B imply that the written certifications are given by the people that work at the gem store? You said that you can have years experience and still rip people off - but isn't that assuming that the people who give the certifications are the ones that work in the store? Also, for E, wouldn't it be possible that the people working at the gem store would be able to work out a deal under the table with the independent company of gem specialists so that they'd inflate the prices of the gems thereby allowing the company to sell for higher profit?

[Dannyboy3D]

Hey Tommy,

How does B imply that the written certifications are given by the people that work at the gem store? You said that you can have years experience and still rip people off - but isn't that assuming that the people who give the certifications are the ones that work in the store? Also, for E, wouldn't it be possible that the people working at the gem store would be able to work out a deal under the table with the independent company of gem specialists so that they'd inflate the prices of the gems thereby allowing the company to sell for higher profit?

I had very similar concerns with my analysis of B) and E)--the two I debated upon. Indeed, one could argue one way or the other on this matter--this question could have been written in a much better way!

LOOKING AT THE STIMULUS: To me, the weakest part of the argument was about the written certification--WHO was providing it? That's what I want to MOST strengthen.

ANSWER CHOICE B): Describes that the gem certifiers have years of experience, but it doesn't directly address who these certifiers actually are. For all we know, they WORK at the gem store; among many other hypotheticals that could be.

ANSWER CHOICE E): More directly describes that "who" I was looking for--independent gem specialists! Indeed, one could also suppose a variety of hypothetical situations about what these independent specialists are up to...but if I'm looking for an answer choice that MOST strengthens the advertisement, then I want to choose the group that looks most impartial and allows the gem store to be seen with the most integrity. After all, the advertisement is trying to draw the distinction that the gem store is NOT like the other jewelers--those whose gem assessors also serve as their salespersons.

So would you rather pick "Independent gem specialists", or "People with years of experience" as a way to separate the gem store from the rest?

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Not to be rude, but: nope. This question is perfect as written. You seem to be forgetting the point here.

The reason someone might lie about the quality of a gem is if they stand to make a profit from it.

(B) The certifications are written by people with lots of experience.

This gives no hint that the people doing the certification are not the people working at the store (i.e. the ones who could make a profit.

(E) The certifications are written by an independent company.

This company would have no reason to lie, because they wouldn't stand to make a profit. Sumukh, I suppose it's possible that there was some kind of under the table deal, but that's an enormous stretch of imagination! Never do that on the LSAT, and you'll be a happy camper.

Hope that helps!

-t

[Dannyboy3D]

Hey Guys,

Not to be rude, but: nope. This question is perfect as written. You seem to be forgetting the point here.

I'll just say other highly regarded sources have concerns about this question that go against your idea of it being "perfect", for reasons discussed above.

[tommywallach]

Hey Danny,

Well, referencing experts without providing links to their discussion is a classic LSAT flaw, my friend, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who say lots of things (for example, here's a scientific study showing that about 1 in 5 Canadians believe in Bigfoot: http://www.livescience.com/18869-bigfoo ... dians.html).

I stand by my point. LSAT questions are written to be difficult. The correct answer here is indubitably better than the wrong answer. As long as that's the case, the question is not written badly.

-t

[WaltGrace1983]

Either way, in regards to the discussion above, we are not here to make the conclusion 100% properly drawn. We are here to STRENGTHEN the conclusion. Does this mean that the conclusion still may not be valid with other assumptions? Oh yea! Absolutely! However, there is no denying that this question is perfectly fine, regardless of what other people say.

If we assume (E), the conclusion is still not properly drawn. Maybe there is an under-the-table deal. Maybe the independent company will profit from this deal. Is this a concern on a strengthen answer? Not really. We shouldn't add our own huge assumptions.

Is this a sufficient answer choice for a sufficient assumption question? Absolutely not. I think that many people are getting confused on the point of strengthening an argument.

[tommywallach]

Agreed, Walt! : )

-t

[ringd909]

Hey Guys,

Not to be rude, but: nope. This question is perfect as written. You seem to be forgetting the point here.

The reason someone might lie about the quality of a gem is if they stand to make a profit from it.

(B) The certifications are written by people with lots of experience.

This gives no hint that the people doing the certification are not the people working at the store (i.e. the ones who could make a profit.

(E) The certifications are written by an independent company for how to measure ring size.

This company would have no reason to lie, because they wouldn't stand to make a profit. Sumukh, I suppose it's possible that there was some kind of under the table deal, but that's an enormous stretch of imagination! Never do that on the LSAT, and you'll be a happy camper.

Hope that helps!

-t

You can a system of opinions for customers. This is easy and fast