#22 - The retail price of decaffeinated coffee is

[LAM]

I am reviewing Assumption questions because I am terrible at them. Even the easy ones I tend to miss, such as this one. I chose C because in my mind other factors account for cost hikes other than production. This is what I pre-phrased and then got wrong. Answer C addressed that for me. Answer E seemed weak - basically says 'all other things are equal in the scenario - basically that the cost of acquiring the beans are the same.' I get how this puts the caffeine and non-caffeine raw beans on like footing. I get how this would help account for the argument that production costs are not the reason for the price inequity. I even saw the difference in 'process' and 'providing' to consumer. I saw that distinction but I still got the answer wrong. Please help.

[Adam Tyson]

You're not alone struggling with Assumption questions, LAM, as many students (I would venture to say most) say this is their biggest challenge. That's understandable, because we are trying to get into the author's head and ferret out something that he believed but neglected to tell us. We're looking for something that was in there even though it wasn't in there.

The starting point has to be your prephrase, and that is going to come from understanding the structure of the argument. So, what did our author argue? He says (and I am paraphrasing here) processing is cheap (premise), so cost isn't the reason for the higher price (conclusion).

Now, focus on that conclusion and find the missing link back to the premise. That's going to be your prephrase. Here, you might come up with something like one of these:

"Processing is the only differentiating cost factor"
"Nothing else contributes to higher price"

These are essentially the same idea, and you could find a number of other ways to express it and they should all get you to where you need to be. The author must be assuming that the cost of the decaffeinating process is the only important cost item that makes decaf's price different than the regular stuff.

Now take that prephrase and use it as a template against all the answer choices, sorting them into losers (those that are nothing like your prephrase) and contenders (those that bear some resemblance to it, or those that you just don't understand and which may, therefore, match what you need but you can't tell because the evil geniuses at LSAC found a confusing way to word them).

In this case, answer E is a pretty good match - that the beans for decaf do not cost more eliminates one possible other cost factor besides processing.

Does C match our prephrase? Not a bit. Does competition impact price? It could, sure, but to apply that would be using outside knowledge, beyond what we were given to work with and beyond the scope of the stimulus. Does the author HAVE to assume there is little competition, allowing distributors to jack up the price without fear of losing market share? No, he doesn't. That may be why decaf costs more, but it may be due to other factors, like demand for decaf being higher or special flavor enhancers being added to decaf but not to regular, or who knows what all else. Stick with your prephrase - costs are not very different - and the right answer will be pretty obvious to you.

Not sure which answer is best? Now try the "Negation Technique" on both. Answer C, negated, would be "there is a lot of competition". Does that destroy the argument that cost is not the reason for higher price? Not at all! Maybe it weakens it a little, by eliminating one potential alternate cause for the difference, but when we negate the answer we want to lay the argument to waste, naked and shivering and crying for help. When we negate answer E, we get "the beans for decaf cost a lot more than those for regular", and that kills the argument dead, dead, dead. Cost isn't the reason? Sure it is, Jack! Look at how expensive those beans are!

That's your process, every time. Be aware of the structure of the argument and what the author wants to prove. Prephrase the missing link that he must have believed in order to make his claim. Compare your prephrase to the answers, sorting into losers and contenders. Pick the best answer, using the Negation Technique if you must (and only if you must) to choose between multiple contenders.

Give that a whirl and see if you like the way it goes. Good luck!

[LAM]

Adam,
First of all, thank you so much for the thorough explanation. That was awesome. You had me laughing with your statement 'laying it to waste, naked, shivering and crying for help". Trust me, I'll remember that one on test day. Ha! Another item: I wrongly typed that I chose C, I actually chose B. So sorry you took the time to explain C. BUT it was helpful nonetheless, since B and C are somewhat close, identifying factors other than production costs.

I have a few thoughts upon reflection of this question: your pre-phrases were not making sense to me until I got to the the pre-phrase you embedded (costs are not very different) in your discussion of why C was wrong. Then the light bulb went on! When I reread the conclusion which reads, "price difference cannot be accounted by greater cost" I realized 2 things: 1) my pre-phrase - other things account for the price difference - wasn't a pre-phrase at all but instead just a rewording of what he said in his conclusion. He already said essentially that other things account for the price difference. 2) Here's where another lightbulb went on - the word 'greater'. I swapped that out for 'in other words, costs must remain the same (or less) but not GREATER/MORE". I just reworded the statement based on 'greater'. That was the linch pin. So if difference isn't because of greater costs, it must mean that costs are the same (or less). That's the assumption!

The word 'providing' (which I did initially notice as different from decaffeination 'process') would account for a wider category of costs other than production/process.

As I reviewed I also noticed one other item. Answer choice B (the one I actually chose!) states, 'price differences between products' - it only says products, not coffee specifically. Could this be another reason why B is wrong?? Thanks in advance!

[Francis O'Rourke]

It sounds like you understand your mistake here. Choice (B) might strengthen the speaker's argument here, but in no way does the speaker have to assume it. For all we know, the speaker could believe that price differences between all products except coffee can be accounted for in terms of production costs, and coffee is just a strange exception. Since the argument concerns coffee we don't want to make the speaker assume anything about other products that have nothing to do with the argument.