LSAT 140 – Section 1 – Question 22

LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 22

December 2013

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

Target time: 1:24

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
PT140 S1 Q22	+LR	Necessary assumption +NA Link Assumption +LinkA Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 12% 164 B 8% 162 C 1% 152 D 30% 161 E 49% 168	156 166 175	+Hardest	148.137 +SubsectionMedium

Video of JY doing this

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

From time to time there is a public outcry against predatory pricing—where a company deliberately sells its products at prices low enough to drive its competitors out of business. But this practice clearly should be acceptable, because even after its competitors go out of business, the mere threat of renewed competition will prevent the company from raising its prices to unreasonable levels.

Summary

The author concludes that predatory pricing should be acceptable.
Why?
Because even after the competitors of a company that practices predatory pricing go out of business, the threat of renewed competition will prevent the company from raising prices to unreasonable levels.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that if predatory pricing doesn’t lead a company to raise prices to unreasonable levels, then it should be acceptable.
The author assumes that there are no negative effects from predatory pricing that would justify not allowing it to occur.

Any company that is successful will inevitably induce competitors to enter the market.

The concept of a “successful” company has no place in this argument. Also, the premise refers to the “threat” of renewed competition preventing prices from rising to unreasonable levels. This doesn’t require that competition actually resume.

It is unlikely that several competing companies will engage in predatory pricing simultaneously.

Not necessary, because even if several companies engage in predatory pricing at the same time, it could still be that one of the companies ends up prevailing. That company won’t raise prices to unreasonable levels.

Only the largest and wealthiest companies can engage in predatory pricing for a sustained period of time.

The concept of “largest and wealthiest companies” has no place in the reasoning of this argument.

It is only competition or the threat of competition that keeps companies from raising prices.

Not necessary, because if there were other things that kept companies from raising prices besides just competition or the threat of competition, that wouldn’t undermine the argument. In fact, that would just be another reason prices won’t rise to unreasonable levels.

Any pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should be acceptable.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if there were some pricing practices that don’t result in unreasonable prices that still should NOT be acceptable — then the fact predatory pricing does not lead to unreasonable prices would not be enough to call predatory pricing acceptable. (E) is the author’s assumed connection from the premise to the conclusion.

LSAT 140 – Section 1 – Question 22

LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 22

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

Video of JY doing this

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 140 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel