#22 - Newspaper: Increases in produce prices

[lanereuden]

I'll try, Freddy!

The premises are:

1. produce prices spiked last year
2. sales at two companies increased last year

The conclusion is that the price increase last year caused more planting in personal gardens

The assumptions are:

1. Sales increases at those two companies indicate a more general increase in sales, rather than just a shift in who has what market share
2. Sales by retail seed companies correlate with planting personal gardens

To weaken the argument, we can attack either of those assumptions. Answer E attacks the first one, suggesting the possibility of a shift in market share rather than a general increase in sales. It doesn't prove it, but it certainly raises doubt about that assumption.

I hope that helps!

The author has noted that sales by the two largest seed companies have increased lately. He suggests that the cause of that increase is that produce prices have driven more people to plant gardens. Our author is apparently assuming that retail seed sales overall have gone up."

Okay so we have to key causal links:
1st one is explicit: price increase caused more personal growing
Second one is implied/assumed: 1st link (explicit) leads to two largest seed companies sales increasing...
This is strange because the 1st one (explicit) is the conclusion and yet it is responsible for a premise occurring. That is, a conclusion is causing a premise.
This is confusing to me.

Also, regarding assumption 1, nowhere does it state that this is reference to a more general increase in sales...just because two big retailers had success does not mean that all retailers had success. And also, the assumption that they retail seed companies pertain to planting personal gardens is a hard one for me because I don’t see how seed companies would necessarily entail buying from personal gardens. Personal gardens sounds like would presumably operate independently from retailers...not sure how the evidence here suggests to the contrary

[bukkaabh]

Hello, I had a question regarding Answer Choice D and if that constitutes something that would weaken the argument if phrased a little differently. If, for example, it had said "Personal gardens are always popular during economic downturns such as the one last year", would that effectively weaken the argument as it is an alternate cause of why there was an increase in gardens? Or are we supposed to pay more attention to the authors problematic assumption that retail seeds overall have increased due to just two retail seed companies sales increasing?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi bukkaabh,

Even if you rephrase answer choice D in the manner you suggest, it will not weaken the conclusion of the argument in the stimulus. This is because we do not know whether the circumstances described in the argument in the stimulus are occurring during an economic downturn or not. If we knew that the argument were describing a scenario occurring during an economic downturn, then answer choice D would potentially provide an alternate cause. But as it stands, the answer choice's effect on the stimulus cannot be determined. Good rule of thumb on Weaken and Strengthen questions: if you have to add additional facts to an answer choice beyond those stated in (or necessarily implied by) the stimulus and the answer choice to make that answer choice work, it's a good sign of an incorrect answer.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[crispycrispr]

Hi,

Is answer choice (B) immediately wrong because it's talking about "decades ago"?

[Robert Carroll]

crispy,

I think answer choice (B) is irrelevant because it doesn't seem to strengthen or weaken the causal relationship between produce prices and planting of personal gardens. I can squint and see a reason answer choice (B) can actually strengthen the argument. If personal gardens used to be bigger when inexpensive produce started to become available, then maybe the gardens got smaller when the effects of inexpensive produce started to manifest. They were big when inexpensive produce started to become available, and are smaller now - maybe because inexpensive produce made them smaller? That would be consistent with the causal relationship the author is trying to make. That's the only interpretation that seems to affect the argument, and it affects it the wrong way. I tend to say even that interpretation is a stretch, so, really, this answer does nothing.

Robert Carroll

[HarryK]

Hi Powerscore Tutors,

I have a question about answer choice (C). Perhaps if it said, "The planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone", then this might be the correct answer. Because in this case, community gardens, not personal gardens, might be behind the increase in seed sales.
But in the stimulus, as it stands, it only says that the 'waitlist' has gotten longer and it would be an unjustified step to assume that the longer waitlist means more planting in community gardens. Because presumably, there was a waitlist in the past already; it has just gotten longer; so it was already full in the past. It was full before and it is full now, so there isn't any additional planting going on in community gardens. So, on the basis of the stimulus, we cannot say that the increase of seed planting in community gardens is responsible for the increase in seed sales; so, (C) fails to provide a good alternate cause for the increase in sales.

Do you agree with me on this line of thinking? Please let me know!

Best,
Harry

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi Harry,

In your post, it seems like you've identified the main conclusion to be that personal gardens have led to an increase in the sales of seeds and you're trying to disprove that statement. Be careful here! This isn't exactly right.

Before looking at answer choice (C), you have to make sure that you've first isolated the correct conclusion. Here, the main conclusion is found in our first sentence - increase in produce prices have led to an increase in the planting of personal gardens. The support given for this conclusion is simply the fact that the two largest seed companies had an increase in sales in the same year that produce prices increase (notice that we are given a correlation to support a causal argument - this is already looking a bit fishy).

Now, because we are trying to weaken the newspaper's argument, we are trying to find an alternate cause for the increase in the planting of personal gardens. We can accomplish this through two main ways - either we find an answer choice that directly tells us something else caused the increase in the planting of personal gardens, or we find an answer choice that tells us that the initial support given is not adequate (there was maybe another reason that the two seed companies had seen a sales increase).

Back to your question - you are saying, "the planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone" would maybe be the correct answer. I would say that even so, this would not really weaken the newspaper's argument. Even if the planting in community gardens had increased significantly, this doesn't accomplish either of our two goals. It doesn't directly tell us that there was another cause besides the produce price increase that led to increased personal gardens, and it also doesn't tell that that there was another reason for the retail seed companies to see greater sales. We would have to really, really stretch it to make it work and say - okay, so community gardens started filling up, so people had to start personal gardens instead (this still has a giant hole in it - why would community gardens fill up if not for the produce price increase?). That's why even this variation on answer choice (C) is not a very strong answer.

As written, the problem with answer choice (C) is that there could be a number of reasons the waiting lists for garden plot rentals have gotten longer. Answer choice (C) needs to tell us that the reason these waiting lists have gotten longer is because something other than increase in produce prices has led to an increased interest in personal garden planting. Because it does not do this, answer choice (C) is not the correct answer.

I hope that clarifies this question a little bit! Let us know if you have any further thoughts or questions.

[HarryK]

Hi Harry,

In your post, it seems like you've identified the main conclusion to be that personal gardens have led to an increase in the sales of seeds and you're trying to disprove that statement. Be careful here! This isn't exactly right.

Before looking at answer choice (C), you have to make sure that you've first isolated the correct conclusion. Here, the main conclusion is found in our first sentence - increase in produce prices have led to an increase in the planting of personal gardens. The support given for this conclusion is simply the fact that the two largest seed companies had an increase in sales in the same year that produce prices increase (notice that we are given a correlation to support a causal argument - this is already looking a bit fishy).

Now, because we are trying to weaken the newspaper's argument, we are trying to find an alternate cause for the increase in the planting of personal gardens. We can accomplish this through two main ways - either we find an answer choice that directly tells us something else caused the increase in the planting of personal gardens, or we find an answer choice that tells us that the initial support given is not adequate (there was maybe another reason that the two seed companies had seen a sales increase).

Back to your question - you are saying, "the planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone" would maybe be the correct answer. I would say that even so, this would not really weaken the newspaper's argument. Even if the planting in community gardens had increased significantly, this doesn't accomplish either of our two goals. It doesn't directly tell us that there was another cause besides the produce price increase that led to increased personal gardens, and it also doesn't tell that that there was another reason for the retail seed companies to see greater sales. We would have to really, really stretch it to make it work and say - okay, so community gardens started filling up, so people had to start personal gardens instead (this still has a giant hole in it - why would community gardens fill up if not for the produce price increase?). That's why even this variation on answer choice (C) is not a very strong answer.

As written, the problem with answer choice (C) is that there could be a number of reasons the waiting lists for garden plot rentals have gotten longer. Answer choice (C) needs to tell us that the reason these waiting lists have gotten longer is because something other than increase in produce prices has led to an increased interest in personal garden planting. Because it does not do this, answer choice (C) is not the correct answer.

I hope that clarifies this question a little bit! Let us know if you have any further thoughts or questions.

Hi Poonam,

Thank you so much for this detailed explanation. But I am not sure whether I am on the same page with you on one of your points. If the planting in the community garden increased significantly, wouldn't that supply a good alternative reason behind the increase of seed sales of the two largest companies? (i.e. the seed sale increased not because of more personal gardens but instead because of more community gardens). So, I do think that this would weaken the conclusion, which implies the chain of: produce price increase causing more personal gardens and this increase of personal gardens causing the increase of seed sales of the two largest companies. (the italicized portion is weakened, I believe). Please let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Harry

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi Harry,

Thanks for following up!

The main issue with a hypothetical answer choice that says, "the planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone," is that it doesn't preclude the possibility that produce prices still led to an increase in the planting of personal gardens. Example: let's say that seed sales increased because of community gardens. I could then say that that shows gardening is becoming more popular, possibly because of the produce price increase. And if community gardens are becoming more popular, what's to say that personal gardens are also not becoming more popular? The hypothetical answer would be a stronger contender if it maybe said, "the planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone due to an increased awareness of the benefits of gardening." This would give us a direct reason to doubt the conclusion which claims the cause was produce price increases, not an increased awareness of the benefits of gardening.

In contrast, if you look at answer choice (E), it takes away the main support for the conclusion in the stimulus. If a large retail seed company went out of business last year, then it opens the possibility that the total number of seeds bought actually did not change from previous years. The profits from seed sales just got re-distributed to the other two seed companies. This directly undermines the conclusion that produce prices led to an increase in personal gardens, because maybe there actually was no increase in personal garden planting.

Does that help to clarify? Let me know!

[HarryK]

Hi Harry,

Thanks for following up!

The main issue with a hypothetical answer choice that says, "the planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone," is that it doesn't preclude the possibility that produce prices still led to an increase in the planting of personal gardens. Example: let's say that seed sales increased because of community gardens. I could then say that that shows gardening is becoming more popular, possibly because of the produce price increase. And if community gardens are becoming more popular, what's to say that personal gardens are also not becoming more popular? The hypothetical answer would be a stronger contender if it maybe said, "the planting in community gardens has increased significantly in last year alone due to an increased awareness of the benefits of gardening." This would give us a direct reason to doubt the conclusion which claims the cause was produce price increases, not an increased awareness of the benefits of gardening.

In contrast, if you look at answer choice (E), it takes away the main support for the conclusion in the stimulus. If a large retail seed company went out of business last year, then it opens the possibility that the total number of seeds bought actually did not change from previous years. The profits from seed sales just got re-distributed to the other two seed companies. This directly undermines the conclusion that produce prices led to an increase in personal gardens, because maybe there actually was no increase in personal garden planting.

Does that help to clarify? Let me know!

Hi Poonam,

Thank you for this detailed explanation. Can I paraphrase what you said in the following manner?: with regard to 'the increase in community garden', it is not really clear why (isn't probable that) this would happen without the increase in personal garden (due to produce prices) also happening; but with regard to (E), it is quite clear to the reader (easily conceivable, quite probable in light of commonsense) that the bankruptcy situation alone can account for the increase in seed sales without the increase in personal gardens (due to the increase in produce prices) also happening. Therefore, only the latter (for the purpose of the LSAT) can be an alternative explanation for the increase in seed sales (possibly/ commonsensically replacing 'the increase in personal gardens due to produce prices increase').
Please let me know if you agree with what I said!

Thank you,
Harry