Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q9 In addition to the labor

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

In addition to the labor and materials used to make wine, the reputation of the vineyard where the grapes originate plays a role in determining the price of the finished wine.

Conclusion (therefore)

An expensive wine is not always a good wine.

Evidence

The reputation of the vineyard where the grapes originate plays a role in determining the price of a finished wine.

Evaluate

To prove that "X is not always Y", we have to establish that sometimes X occurs even though Y doesn't.

So in this case, the author is trying to prove that sometimes you have an expensive wine, but it's not a good wine.

Does he supply an example of an expensive wine that isn't a good wine? No, his evidence is really bad and loose.

He just talks about three things that could make a wine more expensive: - the labor used to make the wine - the materials used to make the wine - the reputation of the vineyard

He must be assuming that it's possible to have an expensive wine (through some combo of how much labor went into it, the quality of materials used, and the reputation of the vineyard) that is not a good wine.

Goal

It's hard to pinpoint what language this answer will say. But it should reinforce the idea that you could have an expensive wine (because of the reputation, labor, materials or some combo of the three) that is still not a good wine.

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

The price of a bottle
Out of Scope: should
The author isn't using any normative language so we can't accuse him of assuming anything about what should / shouldn't be the case. This argument is purely descriptive.
3% picked this
Price is never an accurate
Too Strong: never
The author's conclusion is only trying to prove that there is at least one pricey wine that is not high quality. This answer accuses the author of having committed himself to the notion that price and quality are always a mismatch for each other. That's way too strongly worded. Who would ever want to defend that price and quality never match?
8% picked this
Correct
The reputation of a vineyard
Why this is right
This answer has the lovable quality of ruling out an idea with "not / no" language, which is the hallmark of about 45% of correct answers on Necessary Assumption. If we negate this ruled-out idea, we get "the reputation of a vineyard always indicates the quality of its wines". Would that weaken the argument? Was the author thinking there was sometimes a mismatch between reputation and quality? Yes, but we really have to use our common sense to understand this argument. Labor and materials are more "justified" reasons for a wine to be more expensive. If you worked harder and used more premium materials to make a wine, then it's probably higher quality. But the reputation of a vineyard is not a good reason for the price to go up. It has no direct causal effect on whether the wine that is made is better. So in the argument, we're supposed to hear that the author is saying, "In addition to [these two legitimate factors that can make a wine more expensive], there is also this [silly thing that has no direct causal effect on the quality of wine] that plays a role in determining the price." "Thus, you might see an expensive wine that isn't that great. You're not paying a high price because they worked really hard on it and used great materials. You're just paying for the prestige of the Kendall-Jackson brand name." Thus, the author was thinking that a crappy wine might still have a high price tag if it just has a reputable vineyard's label on it. So, he thinks that a vineyard's high reputation is not necessarily an indicator of high quality wine in every bottle.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
76% picked this
The reputation of a vineyard
Unknown Comparison: greater
The author doesn't need reputation to play a larger role than other things in order for the argument to work. Maybe labor, materials (the quality of the grapes) and reputation all play an equal 33.3% role. That wouldn't weaken the author's argument. The author can still argue that 1/3 of the price you're paying sometimes is simply for the reputation of the vineyard. Is a $15 wine really better than a $10 wine? That extra $5, (1/3 of the $15 wine) is just because of the vineyard's reputation, but the more expensive wine is not necessarily the better wine.
11% picked this
Wines produced by lesser-known vineyards
Opposite, if anything
The author's argument hinges on a disconnect between quality and price, based on the vineyard's reputation. A well-known vineyard with a high reputation will often have a high priced wine that isn't necessarily higher quality. A lesser-known vineyard without much reputation could have a lower priced wine that isn't necessarily lower quality. The author's conclusion is that price does not reflect quality, so this answer choice seems to go against that disconnect by making it seem like price accurately reflects quality.
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