Q7 - Consumers will be hurt by

[tamwaiman]

I want to know whether this is a necessary-assumption question or a sufficient-assumption one.

Many thanks!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ahhh! Neither!

It's actually a Strengthen question. I know it says "if assumed" but you can think of that as "if true." The key words are "does most to justify." That's definitely a Strengthen question.

Does that make sense?

[skapur777]

Confused by this one.

Consumers will be hurt by the lower ceilings on halibut catches. Does that mean that the people who catch halibut will be paid less? and thus less will be caught?

And is B incorrect because there does not need to be a connection between the supply of halibut and demand for it...and even if there was, we don't know in what way and thus does not strengthen?

[manoridesilva]

Confused by this one.

Consumers will be hurt by the lower ceilings on halibut catches. Does that mean that the people who catch halibut will be paid less? and thus less will be caught?

And is B incorrect because there does not need to be a connection between the supply of halibut and demand for it...and even if there was, we don't know in what way and thus does not strengthen?

Consumers in this context means the people buying the halibut.

Let us say people bought halibut regularly because they liked that type of fish. What can we tell about the price of the halibut after the limit on halibut catches comes into force? We would have to know about the popularity of (= demand for) halibut after the law commences. If the popularity of halibut doesn't change, then the price will likely go up because there is less halibut to go round but still the same number of people wanting to buy halibut. Halibut has become a more scarce commodity.

But what if halibut-lovers decide instead to buy cod rather than halibut because halibut is now more expensive than it used to be? If fewer people want to buy halibut, even the decreased supply might be enough halibut to satisfy the people who DO want to buy halibut. Consequently, the price doesn't need to go up because the [b]demand for halibut can be met[/b] by the new, decreased supply of halibut. Ie, prices won't go up unless the demand cannot be met by the current supply = if demand CAN be met, prices won't necessarily go up.

Regarding B, there DOES need to be a connection between supply and demand. B is wrong because it doesn't fill the gap between level of demand and price.

[soyeonjeon]

Thanks for the great explanation.

I picked C for the answer.
Could someone please help me understand why C is incorrect?

Thanks.

[hychu3]

Hi,

I'm a little troubled by this problem also, because it seems to require some knowledge of economics.

(A) is correct answer because it strengthens the conclusion by eliminating one possible way price might not actually increase due to supply and demand. (If the demand for halibut substantially decrease, then price can stay rather stagnant or even fall.)

(C) is incorrect because what it says is essentially substitution effect. That is, if there is a good substitute for halibut, then people will switch to buying that substitute instead, thereby preventing the price from going up.

However, the conclusion of the argument says, "Given the law of supply and demand." Also, the argument qualifies the conclusion by saying "likely to."

Thus, the argument does allow for a possibility that the price actually falls due to factors other than supply and demand.

So, (C) does not eliminate anything possibly inconsistent with the reasoning of the conclusion.

[deedubbew]

why is b wrong?

[maryadkins]

(B) is tricky.

Our argument already says, "given the law of supply and demand." This means that the law of supply and demand"”the "connection" between them, by which we mean, if supply goes up demand goes down and vice versa"”is already factored into the question.

Our gap is: maybe something could interfere with that law's application here. Maybe something could get in the way, like (A)"”demand for halibut suddenly dropping for some reason OTHER than supply changing. In other words, we don't need to establish a general supply and demand connection. We have one. We need to get rid of anything that might interfere with that. (That said, if (A) wasn't there and you needed to choose an answer, I'd go with (B).)

(C) doesn't strengthen because it's irrelevant. If halibut is replaced by production of some other fish, the price of halibut could still go up.

(D) and (E) are irrelevant for the same reason"”we're not concerned about other fish.

[Alvanith]

I think (B) is incorrect because "connection" is too vague.

We don't know exactly what does this "connection" mean. It could be like the demand would not decrease substantially when supply decreases, but it could also mean something else. For example, what if it implies that the demand for halibut would collapse if the supply of halibut decreases? At this point, the price could even drop.

So (B) is not the correct answer because it is unclear whether (B) would strengthen or weaken the argument without other unwarranted or superfluous assumptions.

[rpcuhk]

I think (B) is wrong because (B) is basically a repetition of the premise. The argument already acknowledged that there is "a law of supply and demand". Repeating it, as (B) does, doesn't help the the argument too much.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think (B) is wrong because (B) is basically a repetition of the premise. The argument already acknowledged that there is "a law of supply and demand". Repeating it, as (B) does, doesn't help the the argument too much.

But a "supply/demand" is not the same as "connection." The "connection" could be that as supply goes down (perhaps because of the lower ceiling) then demand goes down too. This wouldn't necessarily mean that the price of halibut will go up.

I think (C), (D), and (E) are all trap answers for if you thought you were supposed to justify the claim that "consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceilings." (C) would would strengthen this claim, (E) weakens it, and (D) really doesn't do much because it doesn't answer to how it will be affected.

[a8l367]

Please comment the following points
1. "lower ceilings on halibut catches" doesn't mean lower production. What if production was already lower than ceiling and new ceiling does not affect production at all? Or we should assume that lower ceiling results in lower production? If so, why?
2. (C) Let's suppose that demand for all produced fish ( let's say salmon + halibut) is 100 per year. Current production 30h+70s. If due to ceilings production changes to 20h+80s, so why prices will increase? Also in this case demand for h still be 100 (if we consider demand for h as demand for "h or substitues" - common definition of the term demand)