Community Profile

This is how I am thinking about it:

The reason we are not asking "why is T more popular than M despite having worse food?" is because the question is asking how we can justify the CRITICS reasoning. We are not trying to justify the discrepancy in general. So how do we connect the critic's reasoning to his conclusion?

Basically, we are trying to stick up for this poor critic because nobody is taking him seriously.

He says "It makes sense that T has worse food but is more popular because T is at a much more convenient location"

Everyone else says "Nuh uh we don't think so. T being at a more convenient location doesn't explain why it can have worse food and still be popular"

But we are like "Actually no, what the critic is saying DOES make sense because by being at a more convenient location T isn't motivated to improve the food"

This is why the question we ask ourselves is "Why does T being at a convenient location explain why it has worse food and is still popular?"

Because if you are at a good location you don't have to worry about the food being bad.

Discussions

June LSAT 2024 3 sections or 4 sections?

Confirm action