Q8 - 1990 editorial: Local pay phone

[noah]

8. (D)
Question type: Weaken
Since vending machine soft drinks have doubled in price over the last 20 years, pay phone companies should be allowed to raise phone call prices as well. This argument is problematic in that it assumes that if the cost of one item has risen, then the price of a different item should also rise. However, if the price of gold rises because of a mine-worker strike, does that mean we should expect the price of milk to rise as well? Answer (D) explains that soft drink production costs have risen faster than those for phone calls.

(A) is out of scope as it discusses the price of the machines, and it does not even compare those prices with the prices in the 1990s.
(B) does not weaken the argument and may in fact strengthen it since it establishes that the price of most items have increased.
(C) is neutral as we do not know whether government regulation of soft drinks did increase, and how that would affect pricing.
(E) strengthens the argument in that it provides another reason that the price of phone calls should be increased.

[cyruswhittaker]

I'm still confused by this one. The argument's conclusion is that the phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too, and the support is that the price of a soft drink has more than doubled since the 1970s.

I was caught between C and D. I chose C because, even though it doesn't address the soft drinks, it does address a fact about the phone calls in general: regulation didn't become more stringent, so perhaps there wasn't any reason for increasing the rates.

D addresses both, but it just says that the cost increased at a greater rate, and on top of that, it only discusses cost of "telephone equipment." Even if this were true, and the ingredient cost increased at 20%/year while the equipment cost increased at 10%/year, how would this weaken the argument?!

D requires extra assumptions to even make it work as a weaken question, which seems to go against the rule of NOT over-assuming.

Any help on this one would be greatly appreciated.

[noah]

If anything, (C) would strengthen the argument! If the government became more stringent about phone pricing, then there's be less reason to think phone companies should be allowed to raise their prices.

Make sense?

[cyruswhittaker]

If anything, (C) would strengthen the argument! If the government became more stringent about phone pricing, then there's be less reason to think phone companies should be allowed to raise their prices.

Make sense?

Yes that makes sense...and also shows why it's so important to actually pay attention to the details in the answer choices!

[noah]

Yeah, I've noticed that too!

[shirando21]

what type of weakening question is this one?

Is it causation, fail to eliminate an alternative cause?

[noah]

what type of weakening question is this one?

Is it causation, fail to eliminate an alternative cause?

I don't categorize weaken questions and am not sure how I'd apply the examples you're giving. All weaken questions are based on an assumption, and the answer invalidates that either directly or through an example. I think you'll get a lot out of figuring out how all weaken questions fit into that category (and the assumption family in general). Sorry I can't be more helpful, though maybe I have been...

[shirando21]

can you ask Matt? he gave me the categories of weaken questions. I have now finished type training (PT20-40) on weaken and the accuracy is above 90% on weaken questions now.

Also, I reviewed the manhattan logic reasoning book on this topic several times, and realized that we need to weaken the connection between premise and conclusion instead of weaken the conclusion in the argument. that's why I missed a lot before.

[noah]

On second thought, my best response to your question would be that this weaken question is about correlation/causation, as the gap is an assumption about that.

I spoke with Matt, and he thinks you're confusing themes or topics with categories. There's no specific weaken question categories in our curriculum, but there are definitely themes running through the test.

I hope that helps.

[shirando21]

thanks. I meant category is causation.

the right answer is doing a job as weakening by providing an alternative...

[asafezrati]

I would appreciate some further information regarding Answer choice A.

I can see that it doesn't address a change between the 70's and the 90's.

I can see that it doesn't give the status in the 90's (the date in which the speaker thinks that there should be an increase in the price).

But I've got this feeling in my guts that this is not an out of scope answer. It has an effect, even if it's a mild one.

Here is a possible explanation:
In the 70's the pay phone machine was less expensive then the drink machine but the prices for the customers were the same, so there was was a lack of balance between the two industries in this ratio. So over time the drinking machine industry had to reach a balance.

I can see how D is much better, and it was easy for me to choose it in real time, but I hate to cross out the wrong question because another was correct during a review.

Your thoughts?