- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:46 pm
#73944
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (E)
The stimulus is prefaced by the word “advertisement.” One quirk of the
LSAT is that every stimulus in LSAT history that has been preceded by
this word has contained faulty or deceptive logic. Thus, whenever you see
this word prefacing a stimulus, be on the lookout for misleading or flawed
reasoning.
The argument is constructed as follows:
Premise: At most jewelry stores, the person assessing the diamond
is the person selling it.
Premise/Sub-conclusion: So you can see why an assessor might say
that a diamond is of higher quality than it really is.
Premise: All diamonds sold at Gem World are certified in writing,
Conclusion: You’re assured of a fair price when a diamond from Gem World.
The first sentence contains a premise and conclusion that rely on the
assumption that financial motivation might cause a person to lie about
the quality of the item. According to the advertisement, at Gem World
there is no such worry because the diamonds are certified in writing.
Think for a moment—does that reasoning sound bulletproof? If you were
standing there in the store and you were told that Gem World has written
certification, wouldn’t you ask who does the certification? This is the
essence of personalizing the argument—place yourself inside the situation
and think how you would react. As soon as you do that in this question,
the weakness in the argument becomes apparent. Then, since this is a
Strengthen question, you can look for an answer choice that eliminates
this weakness. Answer choice (E) addresses the hole in the argument by
indicating that the individuals who provide the written certification are not
the same people who are selling the diamonds at Gem World.
There are other errors in the stimulus, such as assuming that a written
certification equals a fair price. The certification may have no impact on
the actual price of the diamond, or perhaps it could even be used to raise
the price unjustly. These problems are ignored by the answer choices, and
the test makers have that right.
Answer choice (A): The conclusion addresses the fair price of diamonds at
Gem World, not other stores. Hence, the fact that other stores have written
certification does not help the Gem World advertisement.
Answer choice (B): This is an answer many people keep as a Contender.
The answer is incorrect because it fails to address the point raised in the
first sentence, namely that the person assessing the diamond has a personal
stake in the outcome. This “accountability” issue is the central point of the
argument, and since the source of the certifications in this answer choice is
unknown (and could easily be the seller), this answer does not strengthen
the argument.
Answer choice (C): The argument asserts that a fair price is assured when
purchasing a diamond at Gem World. No claim to comparative quality is
made in the advertisement, and thus this answer does not strengthen the
argument.
Answer choice (D): If anything, this answer may hurt the argument since it
indicates that a fair price may not be obtainable at Gem World due to price
volatility. If prices change daily, then Gem World may be selling diamonds
at a price that does not reflect current market value. However, the answer
choice specifically mentions “the most expensive diamonds” and there
is no guarantee that Gem World carries diamonds in this price range. So,
at best, the answer choice has no effect on the argument and is therefore
incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As mentioned above, this
answer addresses the separation of the certification writer from the seller
and thereby strengthens the reasoning.
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (E)
The stimulus is prefaced by the word “advertisement.” One quirk of the
LSAT is that every stimulus in LSAT history that has been preceded by
this word has contained faulty or deceptive logic. Thus, whenever you see
this word prefacing a stimulus, be on the lookout for misleading or flawed
reasoning.
The argument is constructed as follows:
Premise: At most jewelry stores, the person assessing the diamond is the person selling it. Premise/Sub-conclusion: So you can see why an assessor might say that a diamond is of higher quality than it really is. Premise: All diamonds sold at Gem World are certified in writing, Conclusion: You’re assured of a fair price when a diamond from Gem World.The first sentence contains a premise and conclusion that rely on the
assumption that financial motivation might cause a person to lie about
the quality of the item. According to the advertisement, at Gem World
there is no such worry because the diamonds are certified in writing.
Think for a moment—does that reasoning sound bulletproof? If you were
standing there in the store and you were told that Gem World has written
certification, wouldn’t you ask who does the certification? This is the
essence of personalizing the argument—place yourself inside the situation
and think how you would react. As soon as you do that in this question,
the weakness in the argument becomes apparent. Then, since this is a
Strengthen question, you can look for an answer choice that eliminates
this weakness. Answer choice (E) addresses the hole in the argument by
indicating that the individuals who provide the written certification are not
the same people who are selling the diamonds at Gem World.
There are other errors in the stimulus, such as assuming that a written
certification equals a fair price. The certification may have no impact on
the actual price of the diamond, or perhaps it could even be used to raise
the price unjustly. These problems are ignored by the answer choices, and
the test makers have that right.
Answer choice (A): The conclusion addresses the fair price of diamonds at
Gem World, not other stores. Hence, the fact that other stores have written
certification does not help the Gem World advertisement.
Answer choice (B): This is an answer many people keep as a Contender.
The answer is incorrect because it fails to address the point raised in the
first sentence, namely that the person assessing the diamond has a personal
stake in the outcome. This “accountability” issue is the central point of the
argument, and since the source of the certifications in this answer choice is
unknown (and could easily be the seller), this answer does not strengthen
the argument.
Answer choice (C): The argument asserts that a fair price is assured when
purchasing a diamond at Gem World. No claim to comparative quality is
made in the advertisement, and thus this answer does not strengthen the
argument.
Answer choice (D): If anything, this answer may hurt the argument since it
indicates that a fair price may not be obtainable at Gem World due to price
volatility. If prices change daily, then Gem World may be selling diamonds
at a price that does not reflect current market value. However, the answer
choice specifically mentions “the most expensive diamonds” and there
is no guarantee that Gem World carries diamonds in this price range. So,
at best, the answer choice has no effect on the argument and is therefore
incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As mentioned above, this
answer addresses the separation of the certification writer from the seller
and thereby strengthens the reasoning.