Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q19 Inez: In these poor economic times

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Inez: In these poor economic times, people want to be sure they are getting good value for their money.

Inez's Conclusion

If we have our antique objects inspected by professional appraisers who could remove any questionably authentic pieces, people would be more willing to buy antiques at our fair.

Inez's Evidence

In these poor economic times, people want to be sure they're getting good value for their money.

Anika's Conclusion

No, the inspection by appraisers wouldn't make people more willing to buy our antiques.

Anika's Evidence

The customers are already themselves experts, and hiring an appraiser would force us to raise our prices to cover those costs.

Evaluate

This is neither here nor there, but Inez ... in poor economic times, why would anyone buy antiques?! (ok, just had to say it)

Does Anika's response seem like any of our 3 most common moves on Method: - making / breaking an Analogy - showing the Faulty Implications of an Idea - eliminate / suggesting an Alternative

Sure, it seems like the 2nd would apply. Anika is showing how Inez's recommendation would lead to the bad consequence (faulty implication) of needing to raise prices, in order to cover the costs of the appraisers.

Anika's other point is raising an Overlooked Consideration, that the customers are already antique experts so they don't really crave or benefit from an appraiser testifying to an object's authenticity.

She's point out that part of Inez's pitch wouldn't be a compelling upsell for their customer base.

Goal

Look for any answer that's descriptively true. It'll probably comment on Anika rejecting Inez's plan by saying it's supposed upside isn't really something their customers would value, or by saying that it comes with a compelling downside (they'd have to raise prices).

19.

Anika's response proceeds by

Correct
indicating that a particular plan
Why this is right
The anticipated effect of Inez's plan was people to be more willing to buy antiques. Was Anika saying that Inez's plan would lead to people being less willing to buy antiques? Sure. She doesn't explicitly say that, but Anika is saying that Inez's plan would force them to raise prices on their antiques. Is it common sense to think, "if you raise the price on your antiques, people will be less willing to buy it?" Yes. (There might be a voice in your head saying, "Not necessarily! Sometimes people are more attracted to buying something because the price is higher, like a Fendi bag, or like really expensive wine." Sure, but that's not the typical association. Businesses offer sales and discounts and coupons in order to create demand, in order to make people more willing to buy. They don't raise prices to do that, generally.)
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% picked this
claiming that a particular plan
Contradicted (while effective)
This answer is wicked tempting because "undesirable consequence" is a great match for the Faulty Implications answer we were anticipating. Anika did claim that the plan has at least one undesirable consequence (raising prices). But she never said the plan would be effective. Effectiveness is measured by whether the Plan achieves its Goal of "making people more willing to buy antiques at the fair". Since Anika says "I disagree with your prediction", she is saying "I don't think the plan would be effective in making people more willing to buy antiques at the fair". So that part of the answer is contradicted by Anika's statements.
13% picked this
arguing that an alternative plan
Out of Scope (alternative plan)
Anika doesn't offer any alternative plan. She just points out problems with Inez's plan.
1% picked this
questioning the assumption that authorities
Out of Scope (appraisers' availability)
Nothing Anika says ever touches on whether there would be appraisers available to judge the authenticity of these antiques. She just says the appraisers are unnecessary (since the customers are already experts), not unavailable.
2% picked this
offering a counterexample in order
Out of Scope (counterexample)
The only general claim Inez makes is that "in poor economic times, people want to be sure they're getting good value for their money". A counterexample to that would involve a specific case of poor economic times where someone didn't care about getting good value for their money. Anika doesn't present anything resembling that.
0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free