PT6.S3.Q24 - Rumored declines in automobile-industry

TexAgAaron

Really need some help here. I chose D and felt pretty strong about it and it turns out its B. I usually have an inkling on this but I don't see it at all. Thought it was statistical/actual issue.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Admin note: edited title

LCMama2017

I'll try.

I had to read the q-stem several times - why make it so convoluted. Anyway, we basically want to know why the premises do not support the conclusion, i.e, what is the flaw in this argument.

AC D is wrong because we know nothing about what manufacturers and parts companies depend on for their revenue. Nada. Zilch. This is a trick answer choice where the LSAT writers are appealing to you not knowing what the question is asking or perhaps appealing to your knowledge of the car industry. Remember outside knowledge does not count on the LSAT - all you have is the stimulus they give you.

AC B: As it stands, the stimulus does not make sense because (1) it is comparing apples to oranges, i.e., industry revenue vs suppliers and service companies. Huh? Additionally, we don't know the total percentage of any of the increases or the decrease. AC B captures both of these: No matter what changes the automobile industry's overall revenues undergo (this would relate to the suppliers and service companies) the total of all shares of these revenues must be 100% (there we go, if our total is 100% then we can say that the stimulus makes sense).

TexAgAaron

@LCMama2017 said:
I'll try.

I had to read the q-stem several times - why make it so convoluted. Anyway, we basically want to know why the premises do not support the conclusion, i.e, what is the flaw in this argument.

AC D is wrong because we know nothing about what manufacturers and parts companies depend on for their revenue. Nada. Zilch. This is a trick answer choice where the LSAT writers are appealing to you not knowing what the question is asking or perhaps appealing to your knowledge of the car industry. Remember outside knowledge does not count on the LSAT - all you have is the stimulus they give you.

AC B: As it stands, the stimulus does not make sense because (1) it is comparing apples to oranges, i.e., industry revenue vs suppliers and service companies. Huh? Additionally, we don't know the total percentage of any of the increases or the decrease. AC B captures both of these: No matter what changes the automobile industry's overall revenues undergo (this would relate to the suppliers and service companies) the total of all shares of these revenues must be 100% (there we go, if our total is 100% then we can say that the stimulus makes sense).

@LCMama2017 thank you for the response. I'm still not seeing it though. The conclusion I had marked was the first sentence:

Rumored declines in automobile industry revenues are exaggerated.

Aren't parts, dealers, etc. all a part of the automotive industry?

LCMama2017

@akeegs92 said:

@LCMama2017 said:
I'll try.

I had to read the q-stem several times - why make it so convoluted. Anyway, we basically want to know why the premises do not support the conclusion, i.e, what is the flaw in this argument.

AC D is wrong because we know nothing about what manufacturers and parts companies depend on for their revenue. Nada. Zilch. This is a trick answer choice where the LSAT writers are appealing to you not knowing what the question is asking or perhaps appealing to your knowledge of the car industry. Remember outside knowledge does not count on the LSAT - all you have is the stimulus they give you.

AC B: As it stands, the stimulus does not make sense because (1) it is comparing apples to oranges, i.e., industry revenue vs suppliers and service companies. Huh? Additionally, we don't know the total percentage of any of the increases or the decrease. AC B captures both of these: No matter what changes the automobile industry's overall revenues undergo (this would relate to the suppliers and service companies) the total of all shares of these revenues must be 100% (there we go, if our total is 100% then we can say that the stimulus makes sense).

@LCMama2017 thank you for the response. I'm still not seeing it though. The conclusion I had marked was the first sentence:

Rumored declines in automobile industry revenues are exaggerated.

Aren't parts, dealers, etc. all a part of the automotive industry?

You got the conclusion correct and sure parts, dealers are part of the industry but what D is saying is that the manufacturers and parts companies DEPEND on the dealers for their revenue. We don't know that. We have no idea what these companies depend on for revenue. And not only do we not know this - it doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't answer the question. D is basically irrelevant. The stimulus is flawed because its giving us a whole bunch of percentages but how do we know that such percentages support the conclusion? The only way is for all the percentages to equal 100%.

I hope this helps. I'm not the best at explaining since I'm learning myself but maybe someone else will jump in!

TexAgAaron

You got the conclusion correct and sure parts, dealers are part of the industry but what D is saying is that the manufacturers and parts companies DEPEND on the dealers for their revenue. We don't know that. We have no idea what these companies depend on for revenue. And not only do we not know this - it doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't answer the question. D is basically irrelevant. The stimulus is flawed because its giving us a whole bunch of percentages but how do we know that such percentages support the conclusion? The only way is for all the percentages to equal 100%.

@LCMama2017 Sorry I'm getting back to you late. Been busy the past couple of days.

Hmmm....I think I see it. Is it that the assumption is that the suppliers' and service companies' shares are a part of the total revenue share for the automobile industry when in reality they could be separate? That is only thing I can see that may be why this argument is incorrect.

pnwrunner

The stimulus is making the claim that the statement that auto industry's revenues are decreasing isn't truthful. To back the claim that the statement isn't truthful, the stimulus provides us with statistics about the three components of the auto industry as a whole: manufacturers, suppliers, and services. The statistics provided are each of components share of the industry as a whole. Manufactures: declined to 50%, Suppliers increased 20%, and Services, increased 30%. What this information tells us is that there are only three components to the auto-industry as a whole. We know this because their shares of the auto-industry add up to 100%. If they added up to anything less, then we would be missing information regarding a component that makes up the auto-industry.

The Question Stem asks us which answer choice provides the reason why we can't use the provided information to support the initial claim.

Claim: The statement that the auto-industry revenue is in decline is not truthful.
Evidence: Currently, Manufacturers make up 50% of the auto-industry; Suppliers make up 20% of the auto-industry, and Services make up 30%

Answer Choice (D) attempts to tell us that the reason we can't use the evidence provided to support the claim is because Services (identified as dealers in the answer choice) are necessary for the revenues of the Manufacturers and Suppliers (identified as parts in the answer choice). - this provides us with information about how two out of the three auto-industry components earn revenue, but doesn't give us any information regarding why the breakdown of shares of each component can't be used to support the claim.

Answer Choice (B) indicates that regardless of the changes in revenue experienced in the auto-industry as a whole, the shares that each component makes up must equal to 100% of the auto-industry. - In essence, thanks for the breakdown of shares, but it tells us nothing about whether the revenue of the industry as a whole are in decline, stagnant, or increasing. We would need statistics on revenue change and a time period to make a determination. Per example, if auto-industry revenue as a whole is declining over a three year period we would need statistics showing that over the course of three years the revenue has been declining.