This question is an MSS/Fill in the blank question, which we know from the question stem: Which one of the following most logically completes the market analyst’s argument?

Oooh market research! Exciting! Let’s dig in:

Ok so our trusty market analyst tells us that according to her research, 59 percent of consumers think they will pay off their credit card balances before the card companies start to charge interest. Furthermore, they suggest that they’re just using credit cards to avoid the hassle of using checks and cash.

What’s a quantifier we could fill in for 59%? How about most? Most is a quantifier that indicates a range that captures every value over half, right? What’s 59%? It’s over half! Therefore, we can say most. So let’s put a pin in that thought, and move on to the rest of the stimulus.

Ok without tackling the question of whether or not we really think 59 percent of consumers are going to pay their credit card bills on time–let’s see what other information our friendly market analyst has to share with us.

She goes on to say that her research also indicates that in order to win business, credit card companies focus on improving the services that their customers are most interested in. Hmm. Interesting! Are we seeing any overlap between these two arguments?

Let’s think about it: We already identified that most consumers don’t plan to carry a balance or accrue interest on credit card debt. We likewise determined that most consumers use credit cards primarily to avoid carrying cash or checks. We also know that credit card companies concentrate on improving the services that their customers are most interested in. Do you see why identifying that “most” is consistent with“59%” is useful? It connects these two sentences. We already know what services customers are most interested in! They’re interested in convenience( and they’re not interested in carrying a balance).

Now obviously, I read this question before I wrote this description (cat’s out of the bag!), so I knew that drawing this connection explicitly would be useful. But the fact of the matter is, once you are familiar enough with quantifiers, this connection is automatic! You don’t have to think about it. You will intuitively understand that 59% fits in the “most” category and alarm bells should be ringing when you see “most consumers” in the second sentence. If you’re struggling that’s ok! Go back and review the lessons on quantifiers.

Ok so we’ve synthesized the information in our first two sentences. Now let’s turn to the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) We have no information to support this. We know from our first sentence that most consumers have specific wants and needs when it comes to credit cards. Presumably they would utilize the credit card company that best matches their needs.

Correct Answer Choice (B) Let’s revisit what we know about most consumers: they intend to pay off their credit card balances before they start to accrue interest. If credit card companies concentrate on services that most customers are interested in, they definitely shouldn’t focus on interest rates–because most consumers are not interested in carrying a balance and accruing interest. Therefore, this answer choice is strongly supported by the information in our stimulus.

Answer Choice (C) The only thing we know about consumers is most of them are explicitly not interested in paying interest in credit card debt. We have no information about bank loans and therefore, have no information on which to base a comparative statement like the one found in this AC.

Answer Choice (D) This answer choice completely clashes with the information we are given in the stimulus. Most consumers want to pay their balance before it starts to accrue interest. We don’t have any information to suggest they wouldn’t care about the timeline–and it stands to reason that they would be keenly aware of the payment due date so that they can avoid paying interest.

Answer Choice (E) There are a few things wrong with this answer choice. First, we have to provide it with an assumption to make the leap from what we do know (people use credit cards to avoid carrying cash and checks) to what we don’t (so I guess that would mean people care where the credit card is accepted). We also don’t know anything about the quality of competition between credit card companies. We know that, “in order to win business from their competitors” they tend to concentrate on areas that appeal to most consumers. But think about it this way, just because 59 percent of consumers are interested in replacing checks and money with credit cards doesn’t mean that a similar (or larger) percentage of consumers aren’t interested in some other aspect of credit cards. We don’t know which popular aspect of credit cards the companies might end up choosing to focus on or where the intensity of competition would be greatest.


18 comments

An additional note to (B).

So what we see here is quite common with correct SA answer choices. Given that the bar for correct answer in SA is sufficient, the LSAT writers have room to maneuver. They can give us something that's sufficient for the SA. In other words, they can give us a subset of what we anticipate. Allow me to illustrate.

Let's say that "all mammals are lovely therefore, Skittles is lovely." That's a crap argument but nevermind that. What's the missing SA? Simple... right... ?

Right?

Skittles is a mammal. That's what we need.

We scan the answers and don't see any answer that says Skittles is a mammal. Okay.

But (B) says Skittles is a cat. Well, don't we know that cats --> mammals? (You should.)

So choose (B) because it's a subset of what we need. In other words, (B) is sufficient for our anticipated SA answer choice. In other words, cats sufficient mammal. Cats are subsets of mammals. Subsets are sufficient for supersets.

See, one fairly common way to hide a SA answer choice is to give us an answer choice that's sufficient for the SA answer choice.

We anticipated looking for "buyers CANNOT compare prices charged for the item to see what the item is worth." (B) gave us "cannot determine worth". (B) implies what we anticipated. If it's true that we cannot determine worth, then of course it's true that we cannot compare prices to determine worth. That's like say that you cannot get to Canada implies that you cannot drive to Canada.


14 comments

Quality control investigator: Upon testing samples of products from our supplier that were sent by our field inspectors from various manufacturing locations, our laboratory discovered that over 20 percent of the samples were defective. Since our supplier is contractually required to limit the rate of defects among items it manufactures for us to below 5 percent, it has violated its contract with us.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the supplier’s rate of defects for items it manufactures is not below 5 percent, as the contract requires. This is based on the fact that after testing samples of products sent by field inspectors from various manufacturing locations, the lab found that over 20% of the samples were defective.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the rate of defect in the samples sent by field inspectors is representative of the rate of defect in the overall set of products manufactured by the supplier. This overlooks the possibility that the samples selected have a higher rate of defect than the average product (perhaps because the field inspectors might be looking for potentially defective items).

A
bases its conclusion on too small a sample of items tested by the laboratory
We have no reason to think the sample of items sent by the inspectors is too small. In order to pick (A), we need some textual hook in the stimulus to suggest the sample size is too small.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that the field inspectors were just as likely to choose a defective item for testing as they were to choose a nondefective item
The assumption is that rate of choosing defects did not exceed the actual defect rate. (Ex. Actual rate is 25% defects, and inspectors chose defective items 25% of the time, nondefect 75%.) This doesn’t require chance of choosing defect to be equal to choosing nondefect (50-50).
C
overlooks the possibility that a few of the manufacturing sites are responsible for most of the defective items
This doesn’t undermine the argument, because we have no reason to think that a few sites being responsible for most defects would skew the defect rate in the inspectors’ sample. We have no reason to think the inspectors disproportionately picked items from these few sites.
D
overlooks the possibility that the field inspectors tend to choose items for testing that they suspect are defective
This undermines the argument, because it shows that the sample selected by inspectors might have a higher rate of defect than the average product produced by the supplier. This is why we can’t assume the over 20% defect rate in the sample applies to the overall set of products.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the field inspectors made an equal number of visits to each of the various manufacturing sites of the supplier
The author does assume that the manner in which the inspectors collected items for the sample was not biased in a way that made the defect rate in the sample unrepresentative of the overall defect rate, but this doesn’t require any view about the number of visits.

59 comments

Essayist: When the first prehistoric migrations of humans from Asia to North America took place, the small bands of new arrivals encountered many species of animals that would be extinct only 2,000 years later. Since it is implausible that hunting by these small bands of humans could have had such an effect, and since disease-causing microorganisms not native to North America were undoubtedly borne by the new arrivals as well as by the animals that followed them, these microorganisms were probably the crucial factor that accounts for the extinctions.

Summarize Argument
The essayist concludes that microorganisms brought to North America by prehistoric humans caused many species of native animals to go extinct within the next 2,000 years. This is because the prehistoric humans wouldn’t have been able to hunt those animals to extinction, and those same humans certainly brought microorganisms with them.

Notable Assumptions
Based on the fact that humans couldn’t have hunted the animals to extinction, the essayist concludes that it must’ve been microorganisms. This means the essayist doesn’t believe there’s any other means besides humans and microorganisms that could’ve caused the animals to go extinct. The essayist also believes that there was nothing common to the animals that went extinct that wasn’t common to those that didn’t go extinct—for example, perhaps those animals were sensitive to climate changes around that time.

A
Animals weakened by disease are not only less able to avoid hunters but are also less able to avoid their other predators.
This seems to strengthen the essayist’s argument. The diseased animals were susceptible to hunters and predators alike, giving yet another reason why they died out.
B
Human beings generally have a substantial degree of biological immunity to the diseases carried by other species.
We don’t care about the diseases humans are susceptible to. We need to know about the animals that went extinct.
C
Very few species of North American animals not hunted by the new arrivals from Asia were extinct 2,000 years after the first migrations.
Hunting by humans indeed made a difference. The vast majority of the species that went extinct were hunted, which provides us with an alternate hypothesis for how those animals went extinct.
D
Individual humans and animals can carry a disease-causing microorganism without themselves suffering from the disease.
Perhaps the animals that died out were ones that couldn’t carry the microorganisms without suffering from disease. We don’t know.
E
Some species of North American animals became extinct more than 2,000 years after the arrival in North America of the first prehistoric human migrants from Asia.
We care about the animals that became extinct within 2,000 years.

59 comments

A recent study confirms that nutritious breakfasts make workers more productive. For one month, workers at Plant A received free nutritious breakfasts every day before work, while workers in Plant B did not. The productivity of Plant A’s workers increased, while that of Plant B’s workers did not.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that nutritious breakfasts makes workers more productive. This is based on a study in which workers at one plant received free nutritious breakfasts every day before work, and workers at another plant did not get free nutritious breakfasts every day before work. After one month, the productivity of the first plant’s workers increased, while that of the second plant’s workers did not.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that nutritious breakfasts caused the increased productivity in th first plant. The author also assumes that workers in the second plant did not eat nutritious breakfasts. (This overlooks the possibility that, even though they didn’t get free nutritious breakfasts, they still could have eaten breakfasts on their own.)

A
Few workers in Plant B consumed nutritious breakfasts during the month of the study.
This strengthens by helping to establish that the second plants’s workers generally did not eat nutritious breakfasts during the study. If this were not true, then both groups would have had nutritious breakfasts and there would have been no control group.
B
Workers in the study from Plant A and Plant B started work at the same time of day.
It’s not clear that having the same start time strengthens the argument, becaue having different start times would not necessarily weaken the argument.
C
During the month before the study, workers at Plant A and Plant B were equally productive.
The study observed that Plant A’s productivity increased, and Plant B’s productivity didn’t increase. Starting productivity point doesn’t matter, because we’re only comparing increase vs. no increase. We’re not comparing one’s plant’s productivity to another’s.
D
Workers from Plant A took fewer vacation days per capita during the month than did workers from Plant B.
Plant A’s productivity increased, while Plant B’s did not. We’re not comparing one plant’s productivity to the other’s; we’re just comparing the presence of an increase to the lack of an increase. So, comparative vacation days don’t affect the argument.
E
Workers in Plant B were more productive during the month of the study than were workers from Plant A.
The study observed that Plant A’s productivity increased, and Plant B’s productivity didn’t increase. We’re not comparing one plant’s productivity to another’s.

94 comments

This year a flood devastated a small river town. Hollyville, also a river town, responded with an outpouring of aid in which a majority of its residents participated, a proportion that far surpassed that of a few years ago when Hollyville sent aid to victims of a highly publicized earthquake. This year’s circumstances were a reversal of last year’s, when Hollyville itself was the scene of a deadly tornado and so the recipient rather than the supplier of emergency aid.

Summary
A few years ago, some Hollyville residents helped send aid to victims of an earthquake. Last year, Hollyville was hit by a tornado and received aid from others. This year, after a flood hit a different town, most Hollyville residents sent aid to that town. The proportion of Hollyville residents who sent aid this year was much higher than the proportion that sent aid a few years ago, before Hollyville itself had been hit by a natural disaster.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Hollyville’s receipt of aid after a tornado may have increased the proportion of Hollyville residents willing to donate to others after a natural disaster.

A
People are more likely to aid people they know than they are to aid strangers.
Unsupported. We don’t know whether any of the recipients of aid were known or strangers to the people who gave the aid. So there’s no evidence that people are more likely to aid people they know.
B
Those who have received aid are more likely to be in favor of government relief programs than are those who have not.
Unsupported. The stimulus never mentions government relief programs or whether Hollyville residents became more likely to support such programs after receiving aid.
C
The amount of aid that victims of a disaster receive is unrelated to the extent to which the disaster is publicized.
Unsupported. We don’t know the amount of aid anyone received or its relationship to the level of publicity. Although we know about the proportion of Hollyville residents who donated, that doesn’t tell us about the amount of aid received by the people to whom Hollyville donated.
D
Once a disaster has struck them, people are more likely to aid others in need than they were before the disaster.
Strongly supported. A higher proportion of Hollyville residents donated this year compared to a few years ago after Hollyville was hit by a natural disaster (tornado) last year and received aid from others.
E
People are more likely to aid those who have experienced a hardship similar to one they themselves have experienced than to aid those who have experienced a dissimilar hardship.
Unsupported. Hollyville experienced a tornado. Other towns experienced an earthquake and flooding. There’s no basis to say that a tornado is more similar to what Hollyville experienced than is an earthquake.

25 comments

Market analyst: According to my research, 59 percent of consumers anticipate paying off their credit card balances in full before interest charges start to accrue, intending to use the cards only to avoid carrying cash and writing checks. This research also suggests that in trying to win business from their competitors, credit card companies tend to concentrate on improving the services their customers are the most interested in. Therefore, my research would lead us to expect that _______.

Summary

The market analyst's research indicates that over half of consumers plan to pay off their credit card balances in full before interest charges accrue. The research also suggests that credit card companies, in an effort to compete, focus on improving the services their customers care about most.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Credit card companies do not focus on interest rates as one of their main selling points.

A
most consumers would be indifferent about which company’s credit card they use

This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that most consumers intend to pay off their account balance before interest starts to accrue. Even if you read this as being “indifferent,” you have to assume that the interest rate is the only factor consumers care about.

B
credit card companies would not make the interest rates they charge on cards the main selling point

Most consumers do not intend to make late payments with interest. The stimulus states that credit card companies focus on what consumers care about most. It is reasonable to assume that these companies would focus on something other than interest rates to compete for business.

C
most consumers would prefer paying interest on credit card debts over borrowing money from banks

This comparative statement is not supported because there is no mention of consumers’ willingness to borrow money from banks.

D
most consumers would ignore the length of time a credit card company allows to pay the balance due before interest accrues

This anti-supported. The stimulus says that most consumers intend to pay off their balance before interest accrues. There is no evidence that consumers ignore the length of time banks set before interest accrues.

E
the most intense competition among credit card companies would be over the number of places that they can get to accept their credit card

There is no mention of banks caring about the number of places they can get to accept their card. Even if you make that assumption, there is no support that this would elicit the “most intense” competition.


22 comments

About 3 billion years ago, the Sun was only 80 percent as luminous as it is currently. Such conditions today would result in the freezing of Earth’s oceans, but geological evidence shows that water rather than ice filled the oceans at that time. Heat is trapped within Earth’s atmosphere through the presence of carbon dioxide, which, like methane, is a “greenhouse gas.” Only if the level of greenhouse gases were higher 3 billion years ago than it is today would Earth have retained enough heat to keep the oceans from freezing. It is likely, therefore, that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was significantly higher then than it is today.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was much higher 3 billion years ago than it is today. This is because we know that the ocean was liquid 3 billion years ago, and that required the level of greenhouses to be higher 3 billion years ago than it is today.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if greenhouse gases were higher 3 billion years ago, carbon dioxide levels must have been higher 3 billion years ago. This overlooks the possibility that there were other greenhouse gases that were higher back then, while carbon dioxide levels stayed the same or were even lower.

A
Sufficient heat to keep the oceans liquid 3 billion years ago could not have been generated through geological processes such as volcanic activity.
We already know that greenhouse gases were higher 3 billion years ago, which is what helped keep the Earth warmer. The original source of the heat doesn’t change the fact that we know greenhouse gases were higher.
B
Geological studies indicate that there is much less methane in Earth’s atmosphere today than there was 3 billion years ago.
This raises the possibility that the greater levels of greenhouse gases 3 billion years ago were due to higher levels of methane. Carbon dioxide could have been equal or lower than it is today, because methane was higher.
C
Geological evidence indicates that the oceans contained greater amounts of dissolved minerals 3 billion years ago, but not enough to alter their freezing points significantly.
We already know that the ocean was liquid and that this proves greenhouse gases were higher 3 billion years ago. The freezing point of water doesn’t change how we interpret these facts.
D
The increase in the Sun’s luminosity over the past 3 billion years roughly coincided with an increasing complexity of life forms on Earth.
How the sun’s brightness correlates with the complexity of life is irrelevant. The argument concerns levels of greenhouse gases and whether higher levels of greenhouse gases imply higher levels of carbon dioxide.
E
Because the distance from Earth to the Sun has not changed significantly over the last 3 billion years, the increase in the Sun’s luminosity has resulted in more radiation reaching Earth.
We already know the Earth was liquid and that this proves greenhouse gases were higher 3 billion years ago. Levels of radiation don’t change these facts or how we interpret them. The argument concerns whether higher levels of greenhouse gases imply higher carbon dioxide levels.

49 comments

Commentator: For a free market to function properly, each prospective buyer of an item must be able to contact a large number of independent prospective sellers and compare the prices charged for the item to what the item is worth. Thus, despite advertised prices and written estimates available from many of its individual businesses, the auto repair industry does not constitute a properly functioning free market.

Summary
The author concludes that the auto repair industry does not constitute a properly functioning free market. This is based on the following statement, which describes a requirement for being a properly functioning free market:
In order for a free market to function properly, each potential buyer of an item must be able to contact a large number of independent sellers, and compare the prices those sellers charge for the item to what the item is worth.

Missing Connection
The premise establishes a requirement for being a properly functioning free market. So if the author concludes that a certain market is not a properly functioning free market, we know the author is trying to trigger the contrapositive of the premise. In other words, the author’s assuming that market doesn’t meet the requirement. That’s how we can tell we’re looking for an answer that establishes the auto repair industry is not one in which each potential buyer can contact a larger number of independent sellers and compare the prices charged to what the item is worth.

A
People do not usually shop for auto repairs but instead take their autos to their regular repair shop out of habit.
Although (A) establishes that people usually don’t actually compare prices, this doesn’t establish that people don’t have the ABILITY to compare prices charged to what the repairs are worth. They might be ABLE to, even if they tend not to.
B
Some persons who are shopping for auto repairs cannot determine what these repairs are worth.
(B) establishes that the auto repair industry does not meet what’s required to be a properly functioning free market. If some people can’t determine what the repairs are worth, then they can’t compare prices to what the repairs are worth. So it’s not true that “each” potential buyer can compare prices to what the repairs are worth.
C
Not all auto repair shops give customers written estimates.
(C) establishes that some auto repair shops don’t give written estimates. This doesn’t establish that buyers can’t compare the prices charged to what the repairs are worth. Maybe people get verbal price estimates in person or over the phone. Or maybe they can still get price estimates from a large number of sellers, even if it’s not all sellers.
D
Many auto repair shops charge more for auto repairs than these repairs are worth.
We care about whether people can compare prices charged to what the repairs are worth. Whether the prices are higher or lower than the repairs’ worth is a separate, irrelevant issue.
E
Because it is not regulated, the auto repair industry does not have standardized prices.
(E) doesn’t establish that people can’t compare prices charged to what the repairs are worth. Even if repairs don’t have a standardized price, the repairs can still have a worth to the potential buyer. The potential buyer can still compare prices charged to that worth.

An additional note to (B).

So what we see here is quite common with correct SA answer choices. Given that the bar for correct answer in SA is sufficient, the LSAT writers have room to maneuver. They can give us something that's sufficient for the SA. In other words, they can give us a subset of what we anticipate. Allow me to illustrate.

Let's say that "all mammals are lovely therefore, Skittles is lovely." That's a crap argument but nevermind that. What's the missing SA? Simple... right... ?

Right?

Skittles is a mammal. That's what we need.

We scan the answers and don't see any answer that says Skittles is a mammal. Okay.

But (B) says Skittles is a cat. Well, don't we know that cats --> mammals? (You should.)

So choose (B) because it's a subset of what we need. In other words, (B) is sufficient for our anticipated SA answer choice. In other words, cats sufficient mammal. Cats are subsets of mammals. Subsets are sufficient for supersets.

See, one fairly common way to hide a SA answer choice is to give us an answer choice that's sufficient for the SA answer choice.

We anticipated looking for "buyers CANNOT compare prices charged for the item to see what the item is worth." (B) gave us "cannot determine worth". (B) implies what we anticipated. If it's true that we cannot determine worth, then of course it's true that we cannot compare prices to determine worth. That's like say that you cannot get to Canada implies that you cannot drive to Canada.


18 comments