#4 - One way to furnish a living room is with modular

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the ParadoxX. The correct answer choice is (B)

The paradox in this stimulus is that modular furniture costs almost twice as much as standard
furniture of comparable size and quality. For there to be any thought of a paradox here, the author
must be assuming that furniture of comparable size and quality should be the same price, whether
the furniture is modular or standard. Given that assumption, the modular furniture should be
approximately the same cost as standard furniture of the same size and quality. Yet, the evidence
reflects that the modular furniture is twice as expensive.

The stimulus is followed by a Resolve the Paradox—Except question. Because this is an Except
question, the correct answer choice will perform the logical opposite of what is actually stated in
the question stem. Here, the correct choice will not help to account for the greater cost of modular
furniture. Instead, the four incorrect answers will help to account for the greater cost of the modular
furniture. Since the surprising situation in the stimulus is a difference between two things (i.e.,
modular furniture and standard furniture) the author assumed would be the same, our prephrase is
that each of the incorrect answer choices will provide a fact that makes standard and modular sofas
different from each other in a way related to price.

Answer choice (A): If standard furniture is mass-produced, but modular furniture is not, then it is
more expensive to make modular furniture. This helps to explain why modular furniture is more
expensive.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, because it applies equally to both modular
and standard furniture, and so cannot help to explain the difference in price between them. An
answer choice cannot explain a difference between two things by showing a way in which they are
similar.

Answer choice (C): The preference by the most fashionable designers for modular designs, rather
than standard furniture designs, would make modular designs more popular. The increased demand
for modular furniture could help explain the difference in price.

Answer choice (D): Unlike standard furniture, which is mass-produced, modular furniture, which
is custom ordered, is never put on sale. This difference could help explain the difference in price
between modular and standard furniture.

Answer choice (E): If modular sofas have a greater area of upholstered surfaces than do standard
sofas, then more material would be needed to make the modular sofas. This also is a difference that
could help explain the difference in price.

[nelson3clan]

I choose #C I didn't think the term "use" was what they wanted. I was focused on cost. I thought #B the demand would account for the greater cost.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Nelson,

We're looking for factors that explain why modular sofas cost more than standard sofas, even though they're roughly the same size.

In answer choice (C), we're told that the most fashionable designers select modular sofas. If the most fashionable people are selecting this type of sofa, this might increase demand for modular sofas, or lead people to pay a premium to have the same modular sofa as they saw in a high-end design magazine. In any case, once modular sofas are associated with high-end designers, manufacturers can demand a higher price for modular sofas. Since regular sofas don't enjoy this type of association with luxury designers, their cost will not increase by an equivalent amount.

In answer choice (B), by contrast, we're told that demand for all types of sofas may increase faster than the supply of available sofas. You're right that when demand for a product exceeds its supply, prices will go up. However (B) refers to both standard sofas and modular sofas. If demand for sofas in general is high, then the price for both types will increase. Since we're looking for a reason to explain why the price for modular sofas will differ from standard sofas, (B) doesn't help us. All we glean from (B) is that sofa prices overall go up sometimes.

I hope this helps clear things up. Good luck!

[tizwvu34]

A couple of questions and matters for discussion:

AthenaDaloton, above you mention in your explanation of why (C) is incorrect that "if the most fashionable people are selecting this type of sofa this might increase the demand for modular sofas", but the answer doesn't say that fashionable people are selecting it, only that fashionable designers tend to use modular furniture designs; which seems to me like you are making a leap that is not there.

It seems to me that in order to eliminate (C) the reader is required bring in outside knowledge that a fashionably designed sofa would equate to high prices, thereby extending the definition of fashionable to expensive. For example, one could argue that Old Navy clothing is fashionable compared to clothing from 1980's, but still low in price!

In general I feel like this a poor LSAT question because of the outside assumptions that must be brought in. Please advise if my analysis is skewed.

[Brook Miscoski]

Tizwvu,

Keep in mind that taking the LSAT will require you to use general knowledge. Success on the LSAT doesn't require in-depth subject-specific knowledge, but the instructions on a LR section inform you that you must apply commonsense standards. I say this to assure you that you are not supposed to completely ignore your general knowledge.

With that in mind, you are asked to explain the discrepancy in the passage. This type of question requires an answer that states additional information, and you will need to interpret the additional information according to commonsense standards. You're told that 4 answers will explain the discrepancy, but are asked to select the one that does not explain it.

Looking at (c), it is not a stretch to think that "the most fashionable designers" would increase expense--remember, you are expected to apply your common knowledge to understand what the choice is saying. Thus, this choice could explain the discrepancy. You shouldn't, however, go so far afield as to compare new (Old Navy) to old clothing--here, you focused on a distant possibility instead of the general truth that, apples to apples, more fashionable designers will be more expensive.

Looking at (b), the credited response, general information about all sofas doesn't help distinguish modular sofas from regular sofas, so this choice is meaningless for resolving the discrepancy.

Looking at the question that way, this is the kind of LSAT question that you can learn to confidently answer correctly every single time. I know that it can be frustrating to learn how to perform on the LSAT, but try to avoid making judgments about what is a good LSAT question and what is not. That will only interfere with your ability to learn and succeed. What your question illustrates is that you will benefit by remembering to interpret answer choices according to general, common understanding, rather than going too far afield.

[Christmaspuppy]

Sorry I don't understand why never put on sale = more expensive? Is it because I misunderstand the word"sale"? I thought never put on sale = this thing is not for sale. Does it actually means this thing is never sold at a reduced price?

[Adam Tyson]

"Put on sale" means sold at a reduced price, Puppy, rather than at the standard price. You're thinking of "offered for sale," which means available to purchase.