LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 08

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 08

June 2006

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:56

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
PT122 S2 Q08
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Analogy +An
A
1%
156
B
2%
158
C
1%
157
D
94%
164
E
1%
161
120
127
141
 +Easiest 146.896 +SubsectionMedium

1990 editorial: Local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever since the 1970s, when a soft drink from a vending machine cost about the same. The price of a soft drink has more than doubled since, so phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too.

Summarize Argument
The price of pay phone calls should be allowed to increase. This is because twenty years ago they were the same price as a soft drink, and today, the price of a soft drink has more than doubled while the price of a pay phone call has remain unchanged.

Notable Assumptions
The author of the editorial assumes that the price increase of soda is not a necessary response to market conditions that local pay phone calls do not encounter (i.e., if the cost to produce soda increased, the price had to rise accordingly).

A
A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
This does not affect the argument. Regardless of the cost to purchase a pay phone or a soft-drink machine in the 1970s, the services and goods offered by these machines were priced the same.
B
Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if soft drinks are among the goods whose prices increased due to inflation, or if the increase was caused by something else. It is possible that (B) does not even apply to soft drinks.
C
Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
This does not affect the argument. Whether government regulation did or did not become more stringent during this period does not weaken the author’s conclusion that at the time of writing, the price of pay phone calls should be allowed to increase.
D
Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the assumption that the increase in the price of soft drinks is not due to a market condition that pay phone calls do not also face. In other words, it costs more to produce a soft drink, but not to service a phone call.
E
Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
This does not affect the argument. The increased sophistication of telephone equipment does not tell us about the cost to service or price to make a phone call.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply