LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 23

August 9, 2012

Tony: A new kind of videocassette has just been developed. It lasts for only half as many viewings as the old kind does but costs a third as much. Therefore, video rental stores would find it significantly more economical to purchase and stock movies recorded on the new kind of videocassette than on the old kind.

Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.

Summary

In light of Tony’s conclusion that the new kind of videocassette tape would be significantly more economical to video rental stores, Anna claims that the videocassette tape itself only accounts for 5 percent of the total price paid by video rental stores for a copy of a movie. Most of the price video rental stores pay for each videocassette tape consists of royalties, therefore the price video rental stores will pay per tape would decrease considerably less than 5 percent.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The new kind of videocassette tape would not be significantly more economical for video rental stores.

A
The royalties paid to movie studios for movies sold on videotape are excessively large.

We don’t know whether Anna believes the royalties paid to movie studios are excessively large. We only know that royalties account for the majority of the price per videotape copy.

B
Video rental stores should always stock the highest-quality videocassettes available, because durability is more important than price.

We don’t know what Anna believes video rental stores should do.

C
The largest part of the fee a customer pays to rent a movie from a video rental store goes toward the royalties the store paid in purchasing that movie.

We don’t know what a customer’s fees for renting a movie pay for. Anna states that most of the price video rental stores pay for a videotape go toward royalties, but we don’t know what portion of customers’ rental fees cover those royalties.

D
The cost savings to video rental stores that buy movies recorded on the cheaper videocassettes rather than movies recorded on the more durable ones will be small or nonexistent.

Anna believes that switching to the new kind of videocassette tape will not be significantly more economical for video rental stores, since the cost of the tape itself is only a small fraction of the price rental stores pay per copy.

E
If the price a video rental store pays to buy a movie on videocassette does not decrease, the rental fee the store charges on the movie will not decrease.

We don’t know what factors would cause video rental fees to increase, decrease, or stay the same.


94 comments

LSAT 65 - Section 4 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

41 comments

LSAT 135 - Section 4 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

44 comments

LSAT 65 - Section 1 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

16 comments

LSAT 135 - Section 1 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

Physician: There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year. This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous and should therefore be used only under professional supervision.

Trampoline enthusiast: I disagree. In the past ten years sales of home trampolines have increased much more than trampoline-related injuries have: 260 percent in sales compared with 154 percent in injuries. Every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision.

Speaker 1 Summary
The physician concludes that trampolines should be used only under professional supervision. This is because there were many trampoline-related injuries last year, which indicates that trampolines are dangerous.

Speaker 2 Summary
The trampoline enthusiast concludes that professional supervision should not be required for trampoline use. This is because sales of home trampolines have increased a much faster pace than trampoline injuries have increased, and because trampolines would still pose a risk, even if used under professional supervision.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether trampoline use should require professional supervision. The physician thinks it should. The enthusiast thinks it shouldn’t. (That’s what the enthusiast means by “I disagree.”)

A
trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them
Not a point of disagreement. The enthusiast could agree that trampolines cause injuries to a lot of people. But the enthusiasts’ point is that professional supervision still should be required despite the existence of trampoline injuries.
B
home trampolines are the main source of trampoline-related injuries
Neither expresses an opinion. The physician doesn’t distinguish between home trampolines and non-home trampolines. The enthusiast doesn’t compare home trampolines to non-home trampolines.
C
the rate of trampoline-related injuries, in terms of the number of injuries per trampoline user, is declining
The physician doesn’t express an opinion. The physician doesn’t comment on trampoline injuries per user or whether that number has changed.
D
professional supervision of trampoline use tends to reduce the number of trampoline-related injuries
Not a point of disagreement. The enthusiast doesn’t suggest that professional supervision wouldn’t reduce the number of trampoline injuries. He just believes that we shouldn’t require professional supervision, because there will always be risk from trampolines.
E
trampoline use is an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision
The speakers disagree. The physician thinks supervision should be required. The enthusiast doesn’t think so. We know this since the enthusiast suggests that trampolines are not as dangerous as the physician thinks, and points out that there will always be risk from trampolines.

18 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 3 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

23 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

23 comments

LSAT 64 - Section 1 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

29 comments

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

Ethicist: Marital vows often contain the promise to love “until death do us part.” If “love” here refers to a feeling, then this promise makes no sense, for feelings are not within one’s control, and a promise to do something not within one’s control makes no sense. Thus, no one—including those making marital vows—should take “love” in this context to be referring to feelings.

Summary
Marital vows often contain a certain promise that uses the word “love.” The author concludes that “love” in this context should not be interpreted as referring to feelings. This is because the promise would make no sense if “love” referred to feelings.

Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that we should not interpret the word “love” as referring to feelings in the context of a certain promise. But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.

A
None of our feelings are within our control.
(A) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
B
People should not make promises to do something that is not within their control.
(B) concerns whether a promise should be made. But the argument concerns whether a certain word in a promise should be interpreted in a particular way. How a word should be interpreted has nothing to do with whether a promise should be made.
C
“Love” can legitimately be taken to refer to something other than feelings.
(C) establishes that “love” can refer to other things besides feelings. But it doesn’t guarantee that we SHOULD NOT interpret “love” as referring to something else besides feelings in the context of the promise.
D
Promises should not be interpreted in such a way that they make no sense.
We know from the premises that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise makes no sense. (D) establishes that if an interpretation of a promise makes no sense, then we should not use that interpretation. So (D), combined with the premises, proves we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
E
Promises that cannot be kept do not make any sense.
(E) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.

30 comments

LSAT 63 - Section 3 - Question 23

May 13, 2012

17 comments

«‹18192021222324252627282930313233343536›»