LSAT 114 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 24

October 2002

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:19

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
PT114 S2 Q24
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
2%
159
B
5%
161
C
13%
162
D
76%
167
E
4%
162
140
153
165
 +Harder 145.502 +SubsectionMedium

Appliance dealer: Appliance manufacturers commonly modify existing models without giving the modified versions new model names. Some people have complained that this practice makes it impossible for consumers to be certain that the appliance they are about to purchase is identical to the one they may have seen at a neighbor’s or read about in a consumer magazine. Yet manufacturers’ modifications to existing models are invariably improvements that benefit the buyer. Therefore, consumers have little reason to object to this practice.

Summarize Argument
The appliance dealer concludes that consumers have little reason to object to manufacturers’ practice of modifying existing models without giving the modified versions new model names. As support, the appliance dealer cites the fact that these changes are always improvements that benefit the buyer.

Notable Assumptions
The appliance dealer assumes that customers don’t have a reason to object to getting “improved” models without knowing it. It could be the case that customers were specifically looking for features of the previous (”unimproved”) model. The argument also ignores the fact that, because the model names aren’t changed, consumers have no way to determine which model they purchased.

A
Appliances are generally purchased with the expectation that they will continue to be used for several years.
The argument discusses consumers’ attitudes upon acquisition of appliances, so the extended use of these appliances is outside of the scope of the argument.
B
Appliances usually carry a model number that provides substantially more detailed information about the product than does the model name.
This tells us that consumers have a way to determine which exact model they’re purchasing, even if the model name isn’t informative. Consumers can just use the model number to see which product they get, so this information may even support the argument.
C
Appliance manufacturers frequently sell identical products under several different model names.
The argument is about customers’ objections to the practice of listing different products under the same name; having the same name for different products is not relevant to this issue.
D
Improved versions of appliances typically become available before vendors have stopped selling the older versions of the appliance with the same model name.
This weakens the argument because it shows that customers could purchase an appliance without knowing if they’re getting the older version or the “improved” version. If a customer can’t know if they are getting the old or the improved version, they may have a reason to object.
E
The high cost of product advertising makes appliance manufacturers generally reluctant to change model names to reflect modifications to their products.
This information refers to manufacturers’ motivations, while the argument discusses consumers’ reactions to manufacturers’ practices. This information is outside the scope of the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply