Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q7 Consumers will be hurt by the new

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

Start practicing free

Consumers will be hurt by the new lower ceilings on halibut catches.

Conclusion

The price of halibut will increase

Evidence

The law of supply and demand dictates prices, and there are new lower ceiling on halibut catches.

Evaluate

The author is arguing that new maximums on how much halibut can be caught will affect supply / demand in a way that will increase price.

We know the two ways that price increases are for demand to rise or supply to shrink. The author must be thinking that setting these new maximums on how much halibut can be caught will cause supply to shrink.

Is that a definite?

It doesn't really have to be, if halibut fishers aren't anywhere near the current maximum. Like if Toyota decided that on its new model of Prius's, the top speed would be lowered from 120 mph to 100 mph, does that mean that Prius drivers will be going slower than before?

No, not necessarily, because maybe no one was ever driving their Prius faster than 100 mph in the first place.

Goal

Let's look for an answer ruling out our one big objection (what if supply isn't shrinking, because they were nowhere near the old maximum), or any answer that would help us argue that the price of halibut is likely to go up.

7.

Which one of the following, if assumed, would do most to justify the claim that the price of halibut will increase?

  1. Correct

    The demand for halibut will

    Why this is right

    This strengthens mildly, because it is a Necessary Assumption, and necessary assumptions do strengthen somewhat. We can feel the Necessary Assumption vibe whenever we see that whole "ruling out an objection" language like "not / no". If we negated this, it would be saying that, "After the new restrictions are imposed, the demand for halibut will decrease substantially". We know that price goes down whenever supply goes up or demand goes down, so if demand were to decrease substantially that would potentially lower the price of halibut. Since the negation would badly weaken (if not contradict) the conclusion, this answer as written is a necessary assumption and thus it's mildly strengthening the author's claim by ruling out a big objection.

    Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    62% picked this

  2. There is a connection between

    Unclear Impact

    The author doesn't need to assume any connection between supply and demand. My demand for watermelon is constant. All year long I want watermelon, but the supply of watermelon is highly variable. So it's not like in the real world we assume that supply and demand are connected. The question stem is saying, "Sure, but if they are connected, does that strengthen?" No, because I don't know what kind of connection it is --- is it proportional kind of connection or an inversely proportional kind of connection? Are we saying that as supply shrinks, demand shrinks or are we saying as supply shrinks, demand increases? Those two would have opposite effects on the argument, so because we don't know the nature of "the connection" this answer is describing, it has unclear impact.

    17% picked this

  3. The lost production of halibut

    Unclear Impact: other fish

    We're just trying to assess whether the price of halibut will rise. We don't care whether production of other fish goes up. If we knew that people would happily buy this other fish rather than halibut, that could weaken the author's claim. The author is assuming that demand for halibut stays the same while supply shrinks (from these new lower ceilings), thus causing price of halibut to rise. The increased fishing of other fish might have some effect on the demand for halibut, but we're really speculating. Compared to (A), this answer does not give us as clear a sense of how increased production of other fish would affect demand for halibut, whereas (A) just speaks directly about demand for halibut.

    17% picked this

  4. The demand for other fish

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: demand for other fish We only care about the price of halibut, so we only care about how the supply of halibut or the demand for halibut is changing. This answer is talking about the demand for other fish, which does not directly affect demand for halibut (at least not in any way we were told or in any obvious common sense way).

    3% picked this

  5. The amount of halibut consumed

    Irrelevant Comparison

    It doesn't interest us what % of the total fish market halibut is. Whatever that % is, we just want to know whether supply or demand will change now that these new lower ceiling on halibut catches are imposed. This answer doesn't speak to supply of or demand for halibut.

    1% 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