#9 - In addition to the labor and materials used to make

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)

Here the author discusses several factors that contribute to the determination of a wine’s price: in
addition to labor and materials, the vineyard’s reputation plays a role as well. Since reputation is a
factor considered in wine pricing, the author concludes, an expensive wine is not always a good wine—
the implication here is that based on reputation, a wine might end up with a high price despite its low
quality.

The question that follows is an Assumption question, so the correct answer choice will provide an
assumption on which the author’s conclusion relies—perhaps that some wines that are expensive
because of their big name vineyards are not as good as their price tags might suggest.

Answer choice (A): The author does not comment on what should be true of wine prices, so this is not an assumption on which the author’s argument relies. When we take away this assumption (wine price
shouldn’t be a reflection of a wines quality), the author’s argument does not suffer, so this cannot be the
correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B): The author concludes that expense is not always a good indicator of quality, so the
claim that price is never a good indicator is not an assumption required by the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. In concluding that some wines are expensive
even though they are not very good, the author implies that in some cases the prices of big name
vineyards’ wines are high because of their big names, and in spite of low quality.
To confirm this as the correct answer choice, we can apply the Assumption Negation Technique; when
we logically negate, or take away, the correct answer choice to an Assumption question, the negated
version will weaken the author’s argument. The negated version of this choice would be as follows:
“The reputation of a vineyard always reflect the quality of its wines.”
If this is the case, then that undermines the argument of the author, who concludes that a vineyard’s
reputation can sometimes attach a high price to a low quality wine.

Answer choice (D): The author’s argument doesn’t rely on the assumption that reputation plays a greater
role than the other factors--just that reputation can make some wines expensive despite lower quality. To
confirm whether this is an assumption on which the author depends, we can again apply the Assumption
Negation Technique:

“Reputation generally plays no greater a role in the determination of a wine’s price than grape quality.”

Even if it plays a lesser role, a vineyard’s reputation could still conceivably drive up the cost of a
mediocre wine. Since the negated version of this answer choice does not hurt the author’s conclusion, it
cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E): We cannot glean anything about the pricing methods of reputed wines based on the
pricing of lesser-known vineyards. Since this choice has no effect on the argument, it is incorrect.

[tdsykes0]

Hello,
I have a question regarding number 9 on section 2 of this LSAT. I was wondering if someone could explain to me in detail why C is a better answer than D.

THanks

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's a good question--in that one, the author discusses several factors that contribute to the determination of a wine’s price: in addition to labor and materials, the vineyard’s reputation plays a role as well. Since reputation is a factor considered in wine pricing, the author concludes, an expensive wine is not always a good wine—the implication here is that based on reputation, a wine might end up with a high price despite low quality.

The question that follows is an Assumption question, so the correct answer choice will provide an assumption on which the author’s conclusion relies—perhaps that some wines that are expensive because of their big name vineyards are not as good as their price tags might suggest.

C is the correct answer choice. In concluding that some wines are expensive even though they are not very good, the author implies that in some cases the prices of big name vineyards’ wines are high because of their big names, and in spite of low quality.

To confirm this as the correct answer choice, we can apply the Assumption Negation Technique; when we logically negate, or take away, the correct answer choice to an Assumption question, the negated version will weaken the author’s argument. The negated version of this choice would be as follows:

“The reputation of a vineyard always reflects the quality of its wines.”

If this is the case, then that undermines the argument of the author, who concludes that a vineyard’s reputation can sometimes attach a high price to a low quality wine.

The problem with answer D is that the author's argument doesn't rely on the assumption that reputation plays a greater role than the other factors--just that reputation can make some wines expensive despite lower quality.

To confirm whether this is an assumption on which the author depends, we can again apply the Assumption Negation Technique:

"Reputation generally plays no greater a role in the determination of a wine's price than grape quality."

Even if it plays a lesser role, a vineyard's reputation could still conceivably drive up the cost of a mediocre wine. Since the negated version of this answer choice does not hurt the author's conclusion, it cannot be the correct answer choice.

I hope that's helpful--let me know.

Thanks!

~Steve

[Dazhiw]

Hi there,

It's seems answer C is the only one connect good reputation with good wine. but the explanation in the work book does not make sense to me.

"A------->B<----s---->C gets no inference" you can only get inference when some train leads away.

in the explanation of the work book,
Premise: HP-------->GR
Assumption: GR<----s---->GW/
link the two: HP-------->GR<----s---->GW/
get HP<------s----->GW/

I'm so confused.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks for your message. Let's take another look at this question:

The stimulus begins by saying that reputation helps determine the price of a wine:

price of wine based on reputation

The author concludes that an expensive wine is not always good. The right answer choice, when added to the stimulus, will allow for this conclusion to be drawn.

Correct answer choice (C) provides that vineyards' reputations are not always accurate indicators (reputation not always accurate indicator)

When we add this assumption to the premise in the conclusion, we find that:

price of wine based on reputation not always accurate indicator

So, the price of wine is based in part on a vineyard's reputation, which is not always an accurate indicator of quality. If this is the case, that justifies the author's conclusion that the price of wine does not always provide an accurate indication of its quality (thus high priced wine is not always a good wine).

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

-Steve

Again, good question, and good catch! That will be revised in the next print, so please let me know if you have any other questions--thanks again!

[Dave Killoran]

Last night we received the following question:

I was under the assumption when the shared term of the two statements is the necessary condition of the all statement, no valid conclusion can be drawn. LR Bible workbook prep test 44 LR1.

Hi,

Thanks for the question! I'm not entirely certain about your exact question here since you just sent us a picture of the problem explanation along with the note above (which doesn't specify the term you are referring to), so I'm going to make an estimate of what I think you are asking about and go from there. If I'm incorrect, just let me know and I'll reply back

In the answer choice discussion, I believe you are referencing the fact that "good reputation" appears in both terms. The reason I suspect this is because the picture is focused on this relationship, it's the only terms that appears twice, and one of those appearances is as a necessary condition. Thus, it's the closest term that meets the criteria you stated.

As you correctly note, when you have a term that is necessary to two conditions, it's not easy to connect the sufficient conditions (you typically need additional information outside of the two conditional relationships, and that is rarely given and so you usually cannot draw an inference). The problem here, though, is that only one of the statements is conditional (the "High Price Based on good reputation"; the other statement involves the term "some" and in that instance, neither terms is necessary or sufficient. At that point, the problem moves into the realm of Formal Logic, and a "some" statement and an arrow statement can indeed be connected in certain cases to make an inference. If you have the LSAT LRB, check out Chapter 13—it covers Formal Logic and addresses "some" statements and inferences in detail. If you were in the LSAT full-length/Live Online course, check your Online Student Center for Formal Logic (Lesson 8HW, I believe).

So, bottom line is that this isn't a case where it's two necessary conditions, and because of that the relationship rules change, and you can draw this inference.

Please let me know if that helps, and let me know if I got your question right. Thanks!

[anabelgvr]

Hello,

I have a question concerning the set-up. It's a bit stupid but when I initially read the premise I identified the variable as R-P instead of P-R. Can someone explain the reasoning behind it. I saw it as reputation leading to price.

Thank you and sorry for the stupid question

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Ana,

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I am interpreting your diagram as the following:

Reputation of vineyard Price of finished wine

In your formulation, the reputation of the vineyard depends on the price that the wine made from those grapes sells for. This however was not given in the stimulus. The author stated instead that the price depends on at least two factors: the reputation and the labor and materials used.

The relationship between these terms is hard to flesh out because of the language used in the stimulus. The speaker stated that the reputation plays a role in determining the final price. By saying that the reputation helps determine the final price, the speaker is not saying that the reputation depends on the final price. Let me know if you are having trouble understanding this idea.

Whenever you are in doubt about diagramming a conditional relationship, think about what the speaker is identifying as necessary. This should serve as a check against mistakenly reversing the relationship between the terms.

[mrcheese]

Is there a quick way to see how to diagram this?
I understand that the necessary condition is that the wine be from a vineyard of good reputation and that the high price of the wine is sufficient to suggest this. I just want to see what to do when you don't see any indicator words. Maybe there is an indicator word/phrase and I have not seen it.

I appreciate it.

[mrcheese]

"depends on" - could this be a necessary condition indicator?