#25 - Shopkeeper: Our city will soon approve the

[Dave Killoran]

Parallel, SN. The correct answer choice is (D).

The stimulus begins with with background information regarding a new shopping center, which the Shopkeeper states won't be a spot for their store relocation. The reason is contained in the next two sentences, which begin with a conditional relationship:

• High Visibility
  Store +
  Good Growth Potential

This information is paired with the premise that only two spots are being considered for the center: Maple Street, which lacks visibility, and West Avenue, which lacks growth potential. These two pieces of information each deny a separate necessary condition, which enacts a contrapositive of the above relationship, namely that:

• High Visibility
  or Store
  Good Growth Potential

Thus, since Maple Street lack visibility, the store can't be located there, and since West Avenue lacks growth, the store can't be located there. Consequently, based on the given conditional relationship and the additional information, the Shopkeeper's conclusion is sound.


Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The initial sentence can be diagrammed as followed:

• Small Venue
  Sell Out +
  Downtown

There are then two locations under consideration, Jensen Arena and Pembroke Hall. But each has a flaw that fails to meet one of the necessary conditions above, and in each case that enacts a contrapositive that leads to the conclusion the concert will not sell out.

[annrachweila]

Hi,
I chose C initially but ended up switching to D. I was wondering if my reasoning for the elimination of C is correct:
C states that Finch won't travel unless he can get inexpensive plane tickets OR stay with a friend, which seems like 2 separate conditions. However, the stimulus says that the store needs to be in a high-visibility site WITH good growth potential, making it sound like a single condition. D has a similar pattern as the stimulus ("small venue in the downtown area"). Am I right to eliminate C this way? Thank you!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Ann,

Basically yes, although I'd argue that whereas (C) has an "or" in the necessary condition, both the stimulus and (D) have an "and." You called it a single condition (and I'd say you understood what was happening so it wasn't an issue) whereas I would just split that into its two component parts and show it as "and" (as shown above).

Thanks!

[RAB]

Dear Dave,

Is the reason (A) is incorrect due to the fact that it is not about two location choices. Appiah would rent if there is no increase and pets are allowed. So the contrapositive would be if rent increases or no pets Appiah would not rent.

Thoughts welcome.
RAB

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Rab,

You are correct that the stimulus has an additional factor of locations. It starts by saying that a store needs two key criteria (high visibility and good growth potential). There are two locations under consideration, and one lacks the first requirement, while the second lacks the other requirement. Therefore, shopkeeper won't be moving to either potential location.

Answer choice (A) lacks the idea of the two potential options. It jumps straight from her two conditions to the fact that her apartment won't meet either condition. That's different structurally than the stimulus.

Hope that helps!

[RAB]

Thank you Rachel.

[lsatep2024]

Can (A) also be eliminated because it's taking two different conditions rather than two qualities/conditions about a single event? That was what stood out to me the most when I was going between that and my final choice (D)

Thank you!

[Robert Carroll]

lsatep2024,

Answer choice (A) is actually two reasons a single thing won't happen, rather than two different reasons two different options won't be satisfactory, like the stimulus is. It structurally does not match.

Robert Carroll