PT82.S4.Q21 - Restaurant critic: Most people agree that

meletzyosher

This question has me absolutely stumped. It appears that the critic is introducing a paradox (an inferior-rated restaurant is more popular than a superior-rated one) and reconciles it with the fact that the interior one is more convenient. Obvious gap is answer choice B that a convenient location can increase your popularity (albeit it falls short of comparative popularity with other establishments). I've seen some explanations that the critic is not introducing a paradox at all but rather is simply stating a "discrepancy" - one restaurant is better rated than another - and proceeds to explain it with convenience of location thereby making answer D correct. I am simply at a loss of how to interpret the stimulus this way! Especially given that the critic says it is not "surprising" (ie let's reconcile something that IS suprising).

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/

BinghamtonDave

I think the confusion here is what the question is asking us to do. Setting aside the reasoning, which may or may not contain some degree of discrepancy, the job the question stem is asking us to do is to add something to the argument that supports the premise-conclusion structure provided. This job is made a degree or two more difficult due to what I see as- the vague/ sort of odd reasoning in the argument, but at bottom, the credited response functions in a way similar to many other PSA questions.

Breakdown:
the first sentence gives us two comparatives.
In the domain of goodness/quality of food:
Marvas is ****greater than**** Traintrack

In the domain of popularity:
Traintrack is greater than Marva's

This gives rise to an interesting but not really all that absurd idea:
the less quality restaurant is more popular.

This is something we might see in real life:
Peter Luger's has exceptional food, but is less popular than Burger King.

The argument then tells us that this discrepancy: that popularity does not equal quality isn't surprising: thats our conclusion.

What evidence does the argument usher in to support the idea that the lesser quality restaurant being more popular that the higher quality restaurant isn't surprising? That the traintrack has such a great location that they always have a steady stream of customers.

What the argument seems to be assuming is that:
if a restaurant has a steady stream of guaranteed customers
then their quality won't have to change.

We all know something like this: we all know of a restaurant or bar that is popular but really crappy quality.

This is what answer choice (D) does for the argument. Run the contrapositive, add that to the argument. Then the popularity of the restaurant (ability to attract customers) accounts for the lower quality of the food. This answer choice helps justify the reasoning.

David