#22 - If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (C).

The argument is based on a conditional chain with two necessary conditions. The claims to be connected are:

1. If the price of beans rises, the prices at the shop will go up
2. If prices go up, the either a. they must sell noncoffee products, or b. coffee sales will go down
3. If either of those things happens, profitability will decrease

Stringing these all together in a conditional chain (as Nikki has done in a post below in this thread) should give us everything we need to select the correct answer, just by following the chain or else its contrapositive.

Answer choice (A): This is a Mistaken Reversal of the conditional chain, saying that if the last Necessary Condition occurs, the Sufficient Condition must occur. That's backwards, and thus incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Another Mistaken Reversal here, saying that the last thing in the chain occurring proves that at least one of the Sufficient Conditions must occur. Backwards again, so also incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This follows the logic in the chain, saying that if the first Sufficient Condition in the chain occurs, the last Necessary Condition must also occur. Because it follows the chain in the correct direction, without improperly negating any terms along the way, it must be true.

Answer choice (D): Decreasing the price of coffee beans is not a part of our conditional chain, and in any event this answer looks somewhat opposite from what the stimulus said. It's increasing the price of beans that will get us to decreased profits.

Answer choice (E): Neither of the conditions in this answer needs to happen - it could be that the price of beans remains the same or decreases and that coffee sales also decrease at the same time. The stimulus proves nothing about the price of beans going down, but only about what must happen if that price goes up.

[BoomBoom]

Hello,

I was wondering why C is the best answer to this question. I answered A but I don't see what makes this answer wrong and why C is better than the rest.

Thanks,

Chris

[Nikki Siclunov]

Chris,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular LR question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you understand what's going on, which is why you first need to do the following:

• 1. Describe your approach to the stimulus. Did you understand the argument, if any, from a structural standpoint? What is the conclusion, and what evidence is the author using in support of that conclusion?
  
  2. Did you prephrase an answer to the question in the stem? If so, what was your prephrase?
  
  3. What exactly made the two answer choices you have listed particularly attractive? Did you use any question type-specific test (e.g. Assumption Negation Technique) to differentiate between them?

Thanks,

[BoomBoom]

Hello,

1. P/Fact: If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase, the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices.

P/Fact: In that case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease.

P/Fact: But selling noncoffee products will decrease the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability.

P/Fact: Moreover, the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability only if its coffee sales do not decrease.

I had trouble finding a conclusion so i assumed these were just facts.

2. I wasn't sure what to rephrase because there were a lot of premises, but i figured a logical statement that follows from all of it is that if profitability goes down, then coffee bean prices continued to go up.

3. So I went with A based on my prophase but I was also stuck between C and A and during the exam I couldn't distinguish much of a difference between C and A. They seem to be flipped or reversed now that I read it with time to spare. But I'm not sure how best to attack this question to be able to make the subtle distinction between these 2 answers.

Thanks,

Chris

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Chris,

This is a classic example of an argument containing conditional reasoning. The premises, when connected in a conditional chain, produce the following diagram:

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 2.34.31 PM.png

Note that I used the contrapositive of the last sentence when creating the chain.

So, what's the bottom line? If the bean prices continue to increase, profitability will go down regardless of whether they decrease coffee sales or start selling noncoffee products.. Both options lead to the same result. This conditional construction is matched in answer choice (C).

Answer choice (A) contains a Mistaken Reversal of that construction. The profitability decrease is a necessary, not a sufficient condition, for the bean prices going up. A decrease in profitability could have resulted from many other factors, having nothing to do with the price of beans.

If this type of question is giving you trouble, make sure to return to Lesson 2 of the Full Length LSAT course and review the chapter on Conditional Reasoning.

Thanks,

[BoomBoom]

ah ok thanks! That totally makes sense. Im going to have to work on the question type in particular.

[lilcohen]

Answer Choice (D) The price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease without the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability also decreasing.
Not relating to the question, but this statement itself, is there conditional relationship in it: ... cannot ... without? if yes, what's the relationship? thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lilcohen!

"Without" is a conditional indicator that works in the same way as "unless," "until," and "except." Diagramming statements with these terms is a two step process that we call The Unless Equation:

1.) Whatever term is modified by "unless," "until," "except," and "without" is the necessary condition.
2.) The remaining term gets negated before it becomes the sufficient condition.

So, let's apply it to answer choice (D): "The price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease without the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability also decreasing."

Step 1: "Without" modifies "the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability also decreasing." So that is our necessary condition.
Step 2: The remaining term is "the price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease." To negate this, take out the "cannot" so it becomes: "the price it pays for coffee beans decreases."

Thus, the diagram looks like this:

Price the Coffee Shoppe pays for coffee beans decreases Coffee Shoppe's overall profitability decreasing

So, if the price the Coffee Shoppe pays for coffee beans decreases, then the Coffee Shoppe's overall profitability must also be decreasing.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Asal1998]

How do you diagram the follow part of the question?

"In that case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease."

If I use the "either" rules (negate sufficient condition), I get the following.
~sell noncoffee --> decrease sales

Are we overriding the "either" rule because the sentence starts with another sufficient condition?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi A,

Good question! No, we didn't override it, we instead showed it in a different way so we could create a fully connected chain.

For starters, please take a look at the diagram in Nikki's post above. In his diagram you can see the representation of the part you ask about. He showed it this way because we know that if the Coffee Shoppe increases prices, one of the two will happen. But we also know that regardless of which one happens, the result will be the same: a decrease in profitability. This doesn't cancel out the "if one doesn't happen the other does," it just shows it in a way that allows us to connect it to the final term most easily.

This is a trick you can use anytime they do this, and here's another example: PT5, June 1992, LR2 Section III, Prep Test #5, explained at viewtopic.php?f=696&t=8830.

Thanks!