This is a very interesting question. It shows us a principle that isn't used to justify a prescriptive conclusion, but rather a descriptive claim. We also see weighting of different types of value comparisons in each of the answer choices. There is no clear out of left field answer choice here, and the one that is correct tells us a little something about this question type on the LSAT.
I am not sure where JY Ping is getting his terminology of "trade-off" vs "cost-benefit". There is a tradition in this sort of evaluation to consider comparisons along the same axis (financial cost vs financial benefit, or time cost vs time benefit) as different from comparisons along different axes (preference vs financial cost), but both are evaluating costs and benefits. Some traditions, such as economics, prefer evaluations that convert everything to the same axis (e.g., economists will convert time, lives, disability, and hedonic pleasure to money using market calculations), but Ping suggests there is a specific principle of cost benefit when the word cost is used and trade off when the word time is used. That's a pretty nontraditional way to think about cost benefit analyses, and I'd need to see some good evidence to believe the LSAT relies on that. The question here is not "which principle is right?" It's how many points of attachment or similarity are there between the stimulus and the correct answer choice. The actual principle is invisible. You don't need to write it down (it's clearly not just "cost benefit" as that applies to most of these answer choices), you don't even need to use one, unless it helps make it faster and simpler.
The most essential similarity to me between the stimulus and the answer choice, which I could invoke as a principle, I suppose, is the concept of a Trap, or an unexpected cost as a downstream effect not directly related to the intervention being evaluated. Unexpected or unanticipated are subjective, not structural, so maybe it would be better to define it as orthogonal. In the stimulus, the basic cost benefit evaluation is the (implied) cost of the screensavers, vs the (explicit) benefit of reduced electricity bills and reduced spend on equipment. The trap, or orthogonal cost is human capital, but described (vaguely) as cost, which I think we can presume means financial cost. (D) is very similar, with a traditional cost benefit analysis weighing the (implied) cost of the security system to the (explicit) financial benefit in losses by theft, but outweighed by an orthogonal downstream cost, customer goodwill (vaguely described as a cost, but presumably also financial).
I think, behaviorally, on test day, it might be useful to start with a heuristic principle if one jumps out, but the real question is how many points of attachment exist, and whether they are structural or simply language matching.
is there not a mistake in this explanation? when he writes "Similar to (A) and (B), we can move on as soon as we recognize that (C) has costs outweighing the benefits." even though right above he writes "While (B) illustrates the principle of cost-benefit, it lands on the benefits outweighing the costs." am i missing something here?
Wait but how is "The time that it takes to have a pizza delivered may be longer than it takes to cook a complete dinner." not an example of the cost outweighing the benefit? What am I missing? #help #help
JY says it's because we only take into account time? Huh
@saulgoodman13 Because, at least for me, it doesn't explicitly state whether or not the delivery time is a drawback. It is simply comparing two options. But it isn't necessarily saying that the delivery time taking longer than the cook time means that the cost may outweigh the benefit.
@saulgoodman13 I feel like this one tries to play on our biases I saw it as in order for C to be right, we had to assume that one might prefer to eat sooner rather than wait for a pizza. We would have to decide what is considered the cost vs the benefits and once you do that, your implicit bias would have already taken over.
What if I care more about the ease of eating rather than the length of time? What if I cared more about eating as soon as possible? AC C brings about all these questions because it's not a real cost benefit analysis.
@saulgoodman13 It absolutely is a cost benefit analysis in a traditional sense. JY Ping is suggesting that cost benefit is only when financial cost is compared to cost that is probably financial, and not when it's time compared to time (same axis, easily converted to money if you want to stick to what economists think cost benefit analyses are), and also not when comparing preference with money, or money spent on up front cost to money spent on repair cost. I think he's trying to say the principle of cost benefit is the thing we're looking for, and then artificially restricting it so that it maps to the correct answer, but if you want to invoke a principle to justify this question, I think you need to get more specific than "cost benefit", and articulate the things that make the stimulus and answer choice D different from the other cost benefit evaluations in the answer choices.
TIL that screensavers once had a functional purpose other than just looking nice. Can't lie, this revelation lost me at least 5 seconds of time from the shock!
So in this situation, is it important that the right answer choice specifically determine that costs outweigh the benefits? Maybe I misinterpreted, but didn't the overview Parallel lessons state that "whether the concepts are expressed in the positive or negative" isn't important? (This is regarding why B cannot be correct)
@catqing In getting this question correct, I relied on eliminating B, C, and E with the idea that the stimulus and D both compare 2 different components in the analysis (employee time vs electricity, goodwill vs losses), instead of just saving money or saving time. Just wondering if this is not a good method
@moonydidit Yes, essentially they are very similar, but with a trade off, you are fully giving up one for the other. "The kid's may have a treat but they must pick between ice cream or candy". Cost-benefit looks at the detriment or benefit something may provide you or others. Two things can be true within a cost-benefit scenario, think of legislation. It can be true that a group of people benefit from higher taxes, like those that heavily utilize social programs or medicare, medicaid, etc. but the cost is that other classes will have to pay a larger share for things they can't utilize. So, in summary, trade-off is you can have one or the other, not both. Cost-benefit analyzes both sides and both things can be true at the same time.
@beenbrokebro this isn't a satisfactory explanation, as in the hotel security system and the screen saver, there is going to be a decision about whether to get the thing or not. Trade-off vs cost benefit is generally short hand that Ping is invoking for the things that make answer choice D and the stimulus count as the same, and make A, C, and E count as different, but it isn't particularly coherent. Traditionally, these are ALL cost benefit. To identify the correct answer, you need to go deeper structurally, and not by artificially restricting what cost benefit means.
I feel like on this question you really had to pay attention grammar not just structure to get it right. I did not get it until I really took time to look at it in Blind Review,
Any of the older non-traditional students (30s and up) have a flashback to the 90s Mac computer screensavers of the toasters with wings flying across your face on the computer screens? lol
I am not quite that old yet but I am 27 so close enough lol I remember all the pipe screensavers where the pipes would just continually intertwine and fill up the screen. As kid i would just zone out on it sometimes lmao
Yes, but it's no longer important for modern LCD screens, which don't get burn-in. The real purpose of screensavers today is that they function as altered states of consciousness for the computer.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
42 comments
Only 15 seconds over!
This is a very interesting question. It shows us a principle that isn't used to justify a prescriptive conclusion, but rather a descriptive claim. We also see weighting of different types of value comparisons in each of the answer choices. There is no clear out of left field answer choice here, and the one that is correct tells us a little something about this question type on the LSAT.
I am not sure where JY Ping is getting his terminology of "trade-off" vs "cost-benefit". There is a tradition in this sort of evaluation to consider comparisons along the same axis (financial cost vs financial benefit, or time cost vs time benefit) as different from comparisons along different axes (preference vs financial cost), but both are evaluating costs and benefits. Some traditions, such as economics, prefer evaluations that convert everything to the same axis (e.g., economists will convert time, lives, disability, and hedonic pleasure to money using market calculations), but Ping suggests there is a specific principle of cost benefit when the word cost is used and trade off when the word time is used. That's a pretty nontraditional way to think about cost benefit analyses, and I'd need to see some good evidence to believe the LSAT relies on that. The question here is not "which principle is right?" It's how many points of attachment or similarity are there between the stimulus and the correct answer choice. The actual principle is invisible. You don't need to write it down (it's clearly not just "cost benefit" as that applies to most of these answer choices), you don't even need to use one, unless it helps make it faster and simpler.
The most essential similarity to me between the stimulus and the answer choice, which I could invoke as a principle, I suppose, is the concept of a Trap, or an unexpected cost as a downstream effect not directly related to the intervention being evaluated. Unexpected or unanticipated are subjective, not structural, so maybe it would be better to define it as orthogonal. In the stimulus, the basic cost benefit evaluation is the (implied) cost of the screensavers, vs the (explicit) benefit of reduced electricity bills and reduced spend on equipment. The trap, or orthogonal cost is human capital, but described (vaguely) as cost, which I think we can presume means financial cost. (D) is very similar, with a traditional cost benefit analysis weighing the (implied) cost of the security system to the (explicit) financial benefit in losses by theft, but outweighed by an orthogonal downstream cost, customer goodwill (vaguely described as a cost, but presumably also financial).
I think, behaviorally, on test day, it might be useful to start with a heuristic principle if one jumps out, but the real question is how many points of attachment exist, and whether they are structural or simply language matching.
is there not a mistake in this explanation? when he writes "Similar to (A) and (B), we can move on as soon as we recognize that (C) has costs outweighing the benefits." even though right above he writes "While (B) illustrates the principle of cost-benefit, it lands on the benefits outweighing the costs." am i missing something here?
was anyone else confused by the term "economical package"
i dont really get this question lmao
@Kaileavesley same i feel like giving up :(
@tygene Don't! Keep going, you've got this!
Wait but how is "The time that it takes to have a pizza delivered may be longer than it takes to cook a complete dinner." not an example of the cost outweighing the benefit? What am I missing? #help #help
JY says it's because we only take into account time? Huh
@saulgoodman13 it's simply comparing two options: [pizza delivery] and [cook a complete dinner]
Also, it's not clear what are the cost/benefit for having a pizza delivered.
The right form should be cost>benefit,
in terms of money: [pizza delivery] > [cook a complete dinner]
=> [pizza delivery] =/= cost
[cook a complete dinner] =/= benefit
@saulgoodman13 Because, at least for me, it doesn't explicitly state whether or not the delivery time is a drawback. It is simply comparing two options. But it isn't necessarily saying that the delivery time taking longer than the cook time means that the cost may outweigh the benefit.
@saulgoodman13 I feel like this one tries to play on our biases I saw it as in order for C to be right, we had to assume that one might prefer to eat sooner rather than wait for a pizza. We would have to decide what is considered the cost vs the benefits and once you do that, your implicit bias would have already taken over.
What if I care more about the ease of eating rather than the length of time? What if I cared more about eating as soon as possible? AC C brings about all these questions because it's not a real cost benefit analysis.
@saulgoodman13 It absolutely is a cost benefit analysis in a traditional sense. JY Ping is suggesting that cost benefit is only when financial cost is compared to cost that is probably financial, and not when it's time compared to time (same axis, easily converted to money if you want to stick to what economists think cost benefit analyses are), and also not when comparing preference with money, or money spent on up front cost to money spent on repair cost. I think he's trying to say the principle of cost benefit is the thing we're looking for, and then artificially restricting it so that it maps to the correct answer, but if you want to invoke a principle to justify this question, I think you need to get more specific than "cost benefit", and articulate the things that make the stimulus and answer choice D different from the other cost benefit evaluations in the answer choices.
TIL that screensavers once had a functional purpose other than just looking nice. Can't lie, this revelation lost me at least 5 seconds of time from the shock!
@lainlvrlauren Lol SAME! Totally makes sense though but never thought about it.
I am liking these much more than the other parallel questions.
Chat is this parallel parking?
So in this situation, is it important that the right answer choice specifically determine that costs outweigh the benefits? Maybe I misinterpreted, but didn't the overview Parallel lessons state that "whether the concepts are expressed in the positive or negative" isn't important? (This is regarding why B cannot be correct)
@catqing In getting this question correct, I relied on eliminating B, C, and E with the idea that the stimulus and D both compare 2 different components in the analysis (employee time vs electricity, goodwill vs losses), instead of just saving money or saving time. Just wondering if this is not a good method
can someone explain the difference between cost-benefit analysis and the principle of trade-offs?
@moonydidit Yes, essentially they are very similar, but with a trade off, you are fully giving up one for the other. "The kid's may have a treat but they must pick between ice cream or candy". Cost-benefit looks at the detriment or benefit something may provide you or others. Two things can be true within a cost-benefit scenario, think of legislation. It can be true that a group of people benefit from higher taxes, like those that heavily utilize social programs or medicare, medicaid, etc. but the cost is that other classes will have to pay a larger share for things they can't utilize. So, in summary, trade-off is you can have one or the other, not both. Cost-benefit analyzes both sides and both things can be true at the same time.
@beenbrokebro this isn't a satisfactory explanation, as in the hotel security system and the screen saver, there is going to be a decision about whether to get the thing or not. Trade-off vs cost benefit is generally short hand that Ping is invoking for the things that make answer choice D and the stimulus count as the same, and make A, C, and E count as different, but it isn't particularly coherent. Traditionally, these are ALL cost benefit. To identify the correct answer, you need to go deeper structurally, and not by artificially restricting what cost benefit means.
It took me 30 seconds longer to get this correct because I couldn't understand what "customer goodwill" meant in this context, lol.
@springmoon83 Me too, which I've noticed is a common thread for me LOL
I feel like on this question you really had to pay attention grammar not just structure to get it right. I did not get it until I really took time to look at it in Blind Review,
Ya’ll ever tried the 7Sage phone app? Just tried doing this question on my phone and almost gave up because everything was moving all around.
#feedback the phone app lay out is all funky. Could it be simplified to fit better on a phone screen?
yes thats something they need to fix up the app on the phone sucks, its slow and the formatting is wack
u literalllllyyy have to pay for it. so true. i laughed,
In shock I am missing all these principle questions
I am struggling with these :/
dude same
Any of the older non-traditional students (30s and up) have a flashback to the 90s Mac computer screensavers of the toasters with wings flying across your face on the computer screens? lol
Yes! Love the flying toaster screen saver!
I am not quite that old yet but I am 27 so close enough lol I remember all the pipe screensavers where the pipes would just continually intertwine and fill up the screen. As kid i would just zone out on it sometimes lmao
I wasted a considerable amount of my youth watching those pipes, and I would do it again
it's actually my screensaver right now. they brought it back
omg this unlocked memories I didn't know I had lol
principle: don't invest in something if it costs more than what you can save! easy peasy
That's a fair appraisal! I just went with "security investment ----> net loss"
Anyone else just now realizing that screensavers actually have a purpose and are not just images 'saved' to a screen?
Yes, but it's no longer important for modern LCD screens, which don't get burn-in. The real purpose of screensavers today is that they function as altered states of consciousness for the computer.
The principle i abstracted was that "some things that intend to bring about benefits may carry unforeseen costs that override such benefits"
Same here. Mine was, “attempting to mitigate one cost might create an unintended and greater cost”