#9 - Because of increases in the price of oil and because of

[SherryZ]

Thank you so much for your help! It means a great deal to me!

Oct 1999 LSAT, Sec 4, Q9:

I have no idea what I was doing when I confronted my question (my brain shut down )

My understandings to the stimulus are:
1. The oil price is up + gov promotes energy conservation Many ppl use gas instead Use of oil is down by 40% (1970-Now)
2. Use gas must install equipment
3. The author's prediction: Unlikely to switch back to use oil in the near future

Question stem is: The PREDICTION would be called into question if IN THE LAST FEW YEARS...
It means that we have to find an answer that would make the prediction become LIKELY to switch back to use oil in the near future.

My own pre-phrases are:
1. The oil price went down, even cheaper than gas price. So ppl wants to use oil again
2. The gas equipment price went up, which made gas usage not be a good deal. So ppl wants to use oil again.

I chose B, but the correct answer is D. Could you explain this question and answer choices A, B, C, D and E? Because this question bothers me seriously

Thank you very much! Looking forward to your reply

---Sherry

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Sherry,

In your understanding of the stimulus, one thing I would change is the tense of what occurred. The author notes that "Because switching to natural gas involved investing in equipment..." (italics added), and this means that all those houses are already switched over. They've made the investment already, and because they made the investment, they aren't likely to make a switch back to oil because that would mean new equipment.

This has an effect because it means that part 2 of your prephrase doesn't apply. You said, "2. The gas equipment price went up, which made gas usage not be a good deal. So ppl wants to use oil again." But, these homes already have gas equipment, so if gas equipment prices go up, it really doesn't' affect them. What you needed here in part 2 of your prephrase is that, "2. The oil equipment price went way down, which made switching not such a big deal." That point combined with your part 1, gives you answer choice (D) (which is the only answer to address oil equipment, by the way).

From that perspective, take a look again at the other answer choices. Answers like (A) and (C)--which you probably thought initially looked good--contain the gas equipment falling sharply, which now we can see doesn't help call the prediction into question. An answer like (B) also trades on gas equipment, so again it misses the mark. And (E) fails to address the equipment issue at all.

Thanks!

[eober]

Hi,

In this question the author is talking about a decrease in oil usage (by 40%) and an increase in natural gas usage. However, this switch included additional costs due to investing in equipment necessary for natural gas usage. If I understood this part correctly, how can a fall in the cost and price of oil equipment not cause a switch back to oil? I thought D was supporting the argument instead of weakening it.

Thank you for the clarification!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi eober,

The conclusion here is that there will not be a switch back to oil (presumably because it would be too expensive, since people already invested in the natural gas equipment). D calls that into question by making it clear that actually, switching back to oil would be very cheap, and maybe even save money in the long run.

[reop6780]

This is weaken question. The correct answer is D while I chose B.

Since the conclusion of the stimuli is that a significant switch back to oil in the near future is unlikely, I thought providing good reason to use oil again such as drop in the price of oil would be a correct answer.

Answer D suggests drop in the price of oil so that this would encourage people to use oil again in lieu of natural gas. I admit that this is a good answer that I easily passed.

Still, answer B seems to do similar job to make oil look more appealing to customers with the price of natural gas sharply increasing.

Can you explaine why only answer D is correct?

Thank you, powerscore!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, reop,

Ah, Weaken questions. The answer choice that most weakens the link between premises and conclusion is the only right one. Most is my second least favorite word on the LSAT. (My least favorite is "EXCEPT." )

Also, I believe you may have slightly misread answer choice B. It does not say that the price of natural gas itself is increasing, but rather the price of the equipment to heat homes with natural gas.

Since they already invested in the equipment, the price of the equipment no longer matters (the money only needs to be spent once) compared to the price of the gas itself. With that, I believe it is far more clear why answer choice D is correct.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[Morgan2cats]

Hi PowerScore,

I have a similar question with someone above.

I misunderstood this time/causal relationship here: The decrease in oil usage is constant from 1940 to the present, according to the stimulus. The question stem asks about a change in last few years. Thus the change happened before the decrease stops. In another word, the change didn't stop the decrease by causing a significant switch back. Since D provided some good reasons for people to switch back to oil, D eliminates some reasons to supported argument in the stimulus.

Above is my thoughts. Could you please tell me why it's wrong?

After reading your explanation, I think the question wants some reasons people would change back, thus we should choose D. But the "last few years" is too confusing to me. It would be much better for me to understand if they use "next few years".

Did I misunderstand the phrase "last few years" and "next few years", or my feeling is common?

Thanks a lot!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Morgan,

First, the stimulus states that "the use of oil to heat homes fell by 40% from 1970 to the present." While this does seem to be describing a general trend, it would be a mistake to assume that the decrease is occurring at a constant rate.

It's also a mistake to assume that everyone would act immediately based on the information in Answer D. Large changes in trends can take years, so even if these changes have happened in the last few years as the question states, it still weakens the prediction given because it provides reasons why people may be more willing to switch back to oil going forward.

Switching from natural gas back to oil to heat one's home may be a costly and possibly inconvenient decision that people would not make quickly. People may want to wait a few years to make sure that the recent decrease in oil prices is not a fluke, but it is in fact a long term trend that they can rely on. Also, keep in mind that it may take a few years for people to switch back because they may have to save up the money to purchase the equipment to heat their home with oil.

Here's an example to help illustrate the idea. Imagine that you're interested in buying an electric car, but the higher price of both the electric car and the electricity to run it are too expensive for you to make the purchase yet. Answer D would be saying that the price of electric cars and electricity have both gone down in the past few years. Even though you may not have bought an electric car yet, with each year that the prices decrease, you're more likely to eventually make the switch.