Is C wrong because of the phrase "in the same way"?
Although I picked D as the answer it seems like D can be wrong because of the word "would" i.e. Jean disagrees with D because she doesn't think dominating the high cost market is mutually exclusive with selling more equipment on the low end BUT I am not so sure Trac agrees since she states that moving into the high end market "could" hurt overall sales - not that it necessarily will.
This is the problem is see with D: I dont' see why Tracy would agree with the statement because the statement is written in a definite "would" statement while her own point is that having the competitors on an equal footing with them CAN hurt overall sales not that it will.
Is this wrong?
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- nbayar1212
-
Thanks Received: 22
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 78
- Joined: October 07th, 2012
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q9 - Jean: Our navigational equipment
I see your reservation with the wording, for sure. Of course, this is where LSAT would point to "most strongly suggest" in the wording of the question stem and remind us that we only need to pick the best, MOST supportable answer.
I think you're correct about why we can safely eliminate (C). "The same way" is very extreme (sameness, equality, etc. is an extreme idea). Jean only seems to commit to the idea that we'll make at least SOME money by having a product in the low-end market. She's thinking, "we keep what we've got going in high-end, we add a little somethin' via low-end, and we therefore increase our overall sales."
So neither person directly comments on SPECIFICALLY HOW WELL we'd perform in the low-cost market. We can infer that Jean thinks we would sell at least something. We can't really infer anything about what Tracy thinks about our low-cost market prospects.
Tracy's reservation is based on what this plan would do to our high-cost market. She thinks that, by entering the low-cost market, we'd lose the "high-end" cachet that is our main selling point in the high-end market. Her concern is that we may LOSE ground in the high-cost market.
So even though you're correct in saying that (D)'s would is stronger than Tracy's could, you might want to relax your typical standards of LSAT pinpoint accuracy.
These Disagreement questions are sometimes easier when you're thinking in terms of the gist of the disagreement.
I typically read the 2nd person's comments and look for a phrase that butts heads against some phrase from the 1st person's comments.
Here, I find
"which could hurt our overall sales" [tracy]
vs.
"which would allow us to increase our overall sales" [jean]
This is the most explicit disagreement. What is the subject of these claims? "Whether we should dip into the low-end market".
Why does Jean think it would INCREASE sales?
We'll get some new sales in the low-end while continuing to dominate the high end.
Why does Tracy think it could HURT sales?
We'll no longer have an edge over our competitors in the high-end market.
So (D) is not giving us the most top-level line of disagreement (hurt vs. increase sales) ... it's giving us the "why" for those two positions.
=== other answers ===
(A) this is a "fake" comparison ... neither person addressed which market has greater potential for profits
(B) this is an out of scope speculation ... I think both people would probably agree that (B) is NOT true, so this is also not a point of disagreement
(E) Neither person presented a hypothesis that decreased high-end sales would cause bad low-end sales.
Sounds like you understood this one properly. It's good you have picky standards in terms of strength of language. But sometimes on LSAT (this is happening more and more on modern RC), you have to just pick the 'best' answer, even if it's not totally provable from the text.
I think you're correct about why we can safely eliminate (C). "The same way" is very extreme (sameness, equality, etc. is an extreme idea). Jean only seems to commit to the idea that we'll make at least SOME money by having a product in the low-end market. She's thinking, "we keep what we've got going in high-end, we add a little somethin' via low-end, and we therefore increase our overall sales."
So neither person directly comments on SPECIFICALLY HOW WELL we'd perform in the low-cost market. We can infer that Jean thinks we would sell at least something. We can't really infer anything about what Tracy thinks about our low-cost market prospects.
Tracy's reservation is based on what this plan would do to our high-cost market. She thinks that, by entering the low-cost market, we'd lose the "high-end" cachet that is our main selling point in the high-end market. Her concern is that we may LOSE ground in the high-cost market.
So even though you're correct in saying that (D)'s would is stronger than Tracy's could, you might want to relax your typical standards of LSAT pinpoint accuracy.
These Disagreement questions are sometimes easier when you're thinking in terms of the gist of the disagreement.
I typically read the 2nd person's comments and look for a phrase that butts heads against some phrase from the 1st person's comments.
Here, I find
"which could hurt our overall sales" [tracy]
vs.
"which would allow us to increase our overall sales" [jean]
This is the most explicit disagreement. What is the subject of these claims? "Whether we should dip into the low-end market".
Why does Jean think it would INCREASE sales?
We'll get some new sales in the low-end while continuing to dominate the high end.
Why does Tracy think it could HURT sales?
We'll no longer have an edge over our competitors in the high-end market.
So (D) is not giving us the most top-level line of disagreement (hurt vs. increase sales) ... it's giving us the "why" for those two positions.
=== other answers ===
(A) this is a "fake" comparison ... neither person addressed which market has greater potential for profits
(B) this is an out of scope speculation ... I think both people would probably agree that (B) is NOT true, so this is also not a point of disagreement
(E) Neither person presented a hypothesis that decreased high-end sales would cause bad low-end sales.
Sounds like you understood this one properly. It's good you have picky standards in terms of strength of language. But sometimes on LSAT (this is happening more and more on modern RC), you have to just pick the 'best' answer, even if it's not totally provable from the text.
-
- jeans109j618
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: December 23rd, 2023
Re: Q9 - Jean: Our navigational equipment
https://jeans4you.shop/collections/mens-jeans-overalls
Hmm, that's a bummer. But hey, if anyone's interested in getting a versatile addition to their wardrobe, I highly recommend checking out men's denim jumpsuit. They're perfect for those days when you want to step up your style game. Just take a gander here:make_clickable_callback(MAGIC_URL_FULL, ' ', 'https://jeans4you.shop/collections/mens-jeans-overalls', '', ' class="postlink"') It ain't about navigational equipment, but if you're navigating the world of style all the same, you might just find something that floats your boat. Just saying.
Hmm, that's a bummer. But hey, if anyone's interested in getting a versatile addition to their wardrobe, I highly recommend checking out men's denim jumpsuit. They're perfect for those days when you want to step up your style game. Just take a gander here:make_clickable_callback(MAGIC_URL_FULL, ' ', 'https://jeans4you.shop/collections/mens-jeans-overalls', '', ' class="postlink"') It ain't about navigational equipment, but if you're navigating the world of style all the same, you might just find something that floats your boat. Just saying.
3 posts Page 1 of 1