From time to time

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: inevitably10% picked this

   Any company that is successful will inevitably induce competitors to enter

   Does the author make a reasoning move from it's a successful company to it will inevitably induce competitors into the market? No. She only talks about the threat of competition. She doesn't guarantee that competitors will enter the market.

   10%
2. B

   Out of Scope: several at once12% picked this

   It is unlikely that several competing companies will engage in predatory

   The author is never talking about several companies doing predatory pricing at the same time. It wouldn't matter to her whether they do or don't. If several competitors do it at the same time, it's unlikely to succeed at driving any one of them out of business (unless it drives them all out of business as they lower prices to money-losing levels). But the author's argument has nothing to do with whether or not predatory pricing is likely to be a successful strategy. She only is assessing whether it's an acceptable strategy (like ethically).

   12%
3. C

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   Only the largest and wealthiest companies can engage in predatory pricing for a sustained

   Out of Scope: sustained period Out of Scope: largest / wealthiest This is just a common sense trap answer. Sure, this sounds like a true statement about the world we live in. But the author said nothing about the largest / wealthiest companies, so she isn't logically assuming anything about those specific companies, for the sake of this argument. Also, if anything this rule makes someone want to react by saying, "If only the richest / biggest companies can take advantage of this strategy, then that seems unfair. How is that an acceptable strategy?" So we might even go as far as to say this drifts in a Weaken direction.

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: only Illegal Opposite38% picked this

   It is only competition or the threat of competition that keeps companies

   The author is just treating the threat of competition as something that would keep prices reasonable (it would be sufficient to keep prices low). competition → maintain prices This answer accuses the author of thinking that threat of competition is the only way to keep prices reasonable (it is necessary keeping prices reasonable). ~competition → ~maintain prices

   38%
5. E

   Correct36% picked this

   Any pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should

   Why this is right

   This seems strong to me at first blush, but let's think about whether it matches the reasoning flow of the argument: doesn't result in acceptable pricing unreasonable prices → practice Yeah, that seems to match what the author argued about Predatory Pricing. It doesn't result in unreasonable prices (because threat of competition keeps 'em in check). Thus, it's clearly an acceptable practice. Given our prephrase of "all that matters is prices", we can gravitate toward this answer, since it's conveying the idea that "As long as it doesn't mess up prices, I don't care. What's the big deal. Is there more to life than prices?"

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

   36%