Subscription pricing
http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-07/
I initially picked C, probably making some bogus quick logic about how the new bus routes would actually cost the city more and therefore it would not be cheaper to build on the outskirts of town. However, I realize that the answer is B, but still need some more clarification/confirmation in my head to see how that'd be it for sure.
The conclusion is that the Brownlea's post office must be replaced with a larger one. The premises are - the present one cannot be expanded, land near the present one in the city-center is more expensive, and since the acquiring of LAND is where the major cost of a new post office would come from, the outskirts of town is the best place to build it -- because land there must be way cheaper.
B would be the answer because it says that a parking lot would be required if it is built on the outskirts of town and a parking lot would not be required if it is built in the city-center. So, ONE WOULD NEED TO BUY/ACQUIRE MORE LAND (aka more costs) if one builds the post office in the outskirts vs. the city-center. So, building on the outskirts is not necessarily cheaper -- because of the "more" land argument/parking lot which wouldn't be needed if it was built in the city-center.
0
6 comments
Thank you @megsvyas473 and @gs556950! I appreciate the insight :)
@megsvyas473 yeah, my bad. I didn't look up the actual question but I remembered the gist of it from when I took the PT a few months back. I edited the response. Thanks for the catch.
@gs556950 B is the correct answer. I think you mean (C) is the trap answer.
See how Politician 3's comment has nothing to do with an argument that is concerned with real estate prices? The bus routes are a different issue; a different debate.
C) Is a trap answer. What do bus routes have to do with an argument whose evidence is grounded in real estate prices?
In a nutshell:
Evidence: Land is more expensive in the city versus on the outskirts.
Politician 1: "Clearly we should build outside of town because inner city land is too expensive."
Politician 2: "My colleague doesn't know what he's talking about . Land is more expensive in the city but we wouldn't need that much land since we already have a parking lot built."
Politician 3: "I think the reason we shouldn't build on the outskirts is because expanding the bus routes will be expensive."
I think I see your problem. Actually, the conclusion is that the post office clearly could be built more cheaply on the outskirts of town. "Brownlea’s post office must be replaced with a larger one" is a premise, maybe even just context.
A correct weakening answer will explain why, even though the premises are correct, the conclusion might not be likely. In this particular problem, we need to find an explanation as to why the post office might not be BUILT more cheaply on the outskirts of town without contradicting that land in the center of town is more expensive than that in the out skirts of town. (C) is wrong because it has no bearing on the cost of BUILDING the new post office. It’s out of the argument’s scope. B is correct because it explains why the post office might not be BUILT more cheaply on the outskirts of town without contradicting that land in the center of town is more expensive than that in the out skirts of town. It will incur more costs because it needs to also BUILD a parking lot.
Hope this helps.