Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q11 A certain credit-card company awards

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

A certain credit-card company awards its customers bonus points for using its credit card.

Conclusion (therefore)

At any given time, customers who purchase merchandise using the bonus points spend less than they would if they purchased the same merchandise in retail stores.

Evidence

Customers who purchase merchandise using bonus points can buy brand name stuff by mail at prices that are lower than the manufacturers' suggested retail prices.

Evaluate

This conclusion is making a Comparative claim, so we want to think about what is being assumed in this comparison.

The evidence is that .

The conclusion is that .

So the author is assuming that .

If I were objecting to this conclusion and trying to think of a way to argue that you're not necessarily spending less when you buy using points, two thoughts come to mind:

1. What about shipping/handling costs when it comes to mail purchases? Maybe the price tag on the item is lower, but once you add in shipping/handling, you end up spending at least as much as if you had gone to the store.

2. Who says that the price you'd pay at the store is the MSRP? If you've ever gone shopping for a car or a guitar, the dealerships love to show you the (crazy-inflated) MSRP number so that the actual retail price they're selling it at seems like a deal.

Goal

Look for an answer naming the missing link .

Or look for an answer ruling out one of our objections:

11.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The merchandise that can be
Out of Scope: other CC companies
We would only care about other credit card companies if the author's conclusion was promising us that by using this credit card company, we're getting the best price available. But she's not. She's only comparing the cost of using points via this credit card company to the cost of using money at a retail store.
2% picked this
The bonus points cannot be
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: unavailable in retail store Only Thing Mentioned ≠ Only Thing When answers on Necessary Assumption are ruling out an idea using wording like "not", it's smart to negate the answer and see if it weakens. Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- the bonus point can also be used to by merchandise that isn't available for purchase in retail stores"? Of course not. The author never made it seem like you can only buy merchandise that's available in stores. Her argument is only about the kind of merchandise that could be purchased either by points or in store, but just because that's the only kind of merchandise she's talking about doesn't mean she's assuming that's the only kind of merchandise that points can be used for.
3% picked this
The credit-card company does not
Out of Scope: prerequisites for points
When answers on Necessary Assumption are ruling out an idea using wording like "not", it's smart to negate the answer and see if it weakens. Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- the credit card requires you to accumulate a large number of points before you can do what you're describing"? Nope. The author never said it would be quick or easy to use points. She is only saying that, when someone does use points (no matter what the backstory was leading up to that point), they are spending less on that purchase of Item X than they would be if they bought Item X in a retail store.
10% picked this
Correct
The amount credit-card customers pay
Why this is right
When answers on Necessary Assumption are ruling out an idea using wording like "not", it's smart to negate the answer and see if it weakens. Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- the amount these points-users pay for shipping does increase the amount they're spending on Item X to an amount greater than they would spend if they purchased Item X in retail store"? Yes! That would actually blow up the conclusion. The correct answer, when negated, should weaken. It doesn't need to weaken so much that it refutes the conclusion, but in this case it does!
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% picked this
The merchandise available to the
Too Strong: higher
This strengthens the argument, but is not necessary. The author doesn't need prices in stores to exceed MSRP. As long as they match MSRP, the author's argument would still make perfect sense. She needs to assume that the merch you can buy via points or via retail store is not frequently sold in retail stores at prices that are lower than the MSRP.
14% 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