#25 - The more demand there is for something, the easier it

[Overthinker99]

Here’s another take on the reasoning behind this question…aside from the crucial “part to whole” assumption/flaw. The stims premise says that “because there is less demand, the junkyards do not buy it.” All that provides us is the necessary condition of our general statement, which is that “harder to sell→ less demand (contrapositive of ” that more demand→easier to sell”). Satisfying our necessary is not enough to tell us the sufficient is true–that the car will be harder to sell-- which is our conclusion.

In that sense what we need is both a sufficient and necessary assumption: that “less demand” →”harder to sell.” That is exactly what “E” gives us: demand is a sufficient indicator of salability.

D is incorrect not only because it does not bridge the gap, but because its negation would merely be that "lack of demand would be offset by lack of supply." This would strengthen the assumption more than weaken it, as we’d be left with a net-zero difference while we know that newer cars are easier to sell.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

The more demand there is for something, the easier it is to sell. Any junkyard will buy a used car that is less than ten years old, because the parts can easily be resold. However, because there is little demand for car parts that are ten years old or older, junkyards tend not to buy those cars. Thus, used cars that are less than ten years old are generally easier to sell than are cars that are ten years old or older.

(A) The salability of something is not influenced by any factors other than the level of demand for it.

No. “The more demand there is for something, the easier it is to sell”

(B) All used cars that are ten years old or older are sold to junkyards.

No. “junkyards tend not to buy those cars”

(C) In general, the older something is, the more difficult it is to sell.

No. “because there is little demand for car parts that are ten years old or older, junkyards tend not to buy those cars.” Too broad, maybe if it was “the older something is, the more difficult it is to sell” ITS PARTS

(D) When determining the selling price of cars less than ten years old, the lack of demand would not be offset by a lack of supply.

No. This is not supported by the stimulus, and “the lack of demand” is about cars that are ten years old or older. Also, lack of demand for cars would not balance lack of supply of cars? Can I even bring the supply side into this problem or is it out of scope?

HERE'S ALL THE TROUBLE

(E) The salability of cars that are ten years old or older is largely a function of the level of demand for their parts.

The salability of cars that are ten years old or older is NOT largely a function of the level of demand for their parts.

Rephrasing negated (E), cars that sell, that are ten years old or older don’t sell because of a demand for their parts

Premise: “there is little demand for car parts that are ten years old or older”

Conclusion: “used cars that are less than ten years old are generally easier to sell than are cars that are ten years old or older”

Is this saying the entire car that's less than ten years old is easier to sell than the entire car that’s ten years old or older?

Answer choice (E) could be negated or not and both seem to help? How does the assumption negation technique weaken this problem? Old cars aren’t selling very much and old car parts aren’t selling very much???

The stimulus says "there is little demand for car parts that are ten years old or older," and "used cars that are less than ten years old are generally easier to sell than are cars that are ten years old or older” this is more in line with an answer choice that says "The salability of cars that are ten years old or older is largely a function of the level of demand for" THE ENTIRE CAR? The stimulus explicitly says something about the low demand for old car PARTS and only says less old entire cars are easier to sell than OLD ENTIRE CARS. The assumption seems more in line with my made up, better answer (F), let’s call it???

Dear LSAC, here’s what you should use next time in place of (E): The salability of cars that are ten years old or older is largely a function of the level of demand for the entire car. You’re welcome.