LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 22

June 2007

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:34

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT123 S3 Q22	+LR	Must be true +MBT Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 6% 149 B 40% 150 C 46% 154 D 5% 147 E 3% 146	140 156 171	+Harder	144.044 +SubsectionEasier

If the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase, the Coffee Shoppe will have to increase its prices. In that case, either the Coffee Shoppe will begin selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will decrease. But selling noncoffee products will decrease the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability. Moreover, the Coffee Shoppe can avoid a decrease in overall profitability only if its coffee sales do not decrease.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

If the price paid for beans increases, then there will be a decrease in overall profitability.

If the Coffee Shoppe increases its prices, then there will be a decrease in overall profitability.

If the price paid for beans increases, the Coffee Shoppe will either sell non-coffee products or coffee sales will decrease.

If the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability decreases, the price it pays for coffee beans will have continued to increase.

This could be false. Decrease in overall profitability is a necessary condition of the price increase of coffee beans. (A) confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions.

If the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability decreases, either it will have begun selling noncoffee products or its coffee sales will have decreased.

This could be false. As shown in the diagram, selling non-coffee products and decreasing coffee sales are both sufficient conditions of a decrease in overall profitability. (B) mixes up the relationship and treats these sufficient conditions as necessary conditions.

The Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability will decrease if the price it pays for coffee beans continues to increase.

This must be true. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that overall profitability decrease is a necessary condition of an increase in the price paid for beans.

The price it pays for coffee beans cannot decrease without the Coffee Shoppe’s overall profitability also decreasing.

This could be false. (D) can be translated to say “decrease in price of coffee beans→ decrease in overall profitability.” The stimulus says that if the price of coffee beans increases, then there will be a decrease in overall profitability, which is not what (D) says.

Either the price it pays for coffee beans will continue to increase or the Coffee Shoppe’s coffee sales will increase.

This could be false. (E) can be translated to say “/increase in price of beans→increase in coffee sales.” This is not an inference that can be drawn from the conditional chain.

Relevant lessons: Referential phrasing | Modifiers and embedded clauses | Conditional logic | Advanced logic | Must be true questions

LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 22

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 123 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel