PT65.S1.Q3 - Low-Energy Lighting - Why Answer Choice B?

tonypepperonitonypepperoni Monthly Member
edited September 2021 in Logical Reasoning 80 karma

The video explanation was pretty terrible for this one. He really brushes over why answer choice B is correct. Can someone elaborate? Surely the profits of the lightbulb are relevant to the argument that people should change the type of lightbulbs they use, right?

Explanation Video:
Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"


  • jerslanderjerslander Alum Member
    146 karma

    The problem with B, as I had seen it, is that the home-lighting industry's profits have very little bearing towards evaluating the argument which claims "everyone should use low-wattage bulbs." It would be extremely nice to know the actual individual costs of low-wattage bulbs or the costs of burning low-wattage bulbs. (C and A respectively), since price is clearly articulated as a point of concern earlier in the argument (it would be nice to gauge just how much more expensive low-wattage is over normal bulbs).

    The average life expectancy (E) would also be nice to know, as how long a low-wattage bulb lasts is a key consideration to costs (not only would it be inconvenient, but also pricy to keep switching). I could see how C might seem a little iffy, but at the very least, the opinions of actual low-wattage bulb users would provide at least some insight into evaluating whether or not everyone should make the switch.

    Ultimately B doesn't really help. Why should one care about the profits the home-lighting industry expects from the switch? Should we assume that because they expect some amount of profit, there is some ulterior motive and that ulterior motive should sway one's evaluation of whether or not to make the switch?

  • trisdhaliwal1trisdhaliwal1 Alum Member
    89 karma


    So answer B isn't very relevant to the argument itself. The argument is that people should switch to low watt bulbs because they're more advantageous.

    The amount of money the light industry makes has no advantage to the consumers

  • DarinnnnnDarinnnnn Alum Member
    244 karma

    Also what about the government? They too are advocating as well

  • tonypepperonitonypepperoni Monthly Member
    80 karma

    Understood - thank you both so much!

  • hotranchsaucehotranchsauce Alum Member
    edited September 2021 288 karma

    I think ..

    Goal: Find argument, then select the most useless info for that argument

    main conclusion: Any person [ever] should use low watt
    because (premise): low watt cost more AND have huge advantages

    Give each answer a rank, 0-5. 5 is very useful/pertinent/meaningful to the argument, 0 is meaningless, -1 is absolutely stupidly meaningless.

    a 3ish, this directly references a premise and sheds more light onto it
    b 0, the main topic of this sentence is profits, the stim argument NEVER mentions profits, even in the context. This a hard 0, but keep going incase you find a -1.
    c 3ish, this is similar to a
    d 1ish on first glance, but seems to be a 4 if you really dig at it. So, if you knew, for example, that all current low wattage users ABSOLUTLY HATED low watt bulbs AND testified that the bulbs fail after just 5 minutes of use, could you maybe say that the stim argument is perhaps not really that cool? Yes. Basically, d tells you that you can imagine these bulb users to say whatever it is that you want them to say. This gives you the freedom to show yourself that their opinion could greatly influence the argument if their thoughts were presented as evidence. Let's plug it in.

    main conclusion: Any person [ever] should use low watt
    because (premise): low watt cost more AND have huge advantages AND ALL low watt bulb users say that low watt bulbs are ABSOLUTLY GARBAGE and that NO ONE SHOULD USE THEM EVER.

    Yea, this turns a seemingly kind of OK main conclusion into an absolutely horrible main conclusion.

    e 5. If we knew that the low watt bulb lasted 1 day compared to a normal one lasting 27 years, this would seriously call into question the argument. OR, if we knew that low watt lasted 99 years and normal bulbs lasted 1 day. You can imagine it going whichever way you want. That's why I look at this problem type as a "strengthen OR weaken" kind of situation.

    Also, this question, I think everything above "Although" is absolutely not necessary to answer the question, so don't read too far into it.

    I think this question is a great example of how the LSAT will try to confuse you in the context portion of the stimulus, and that many times it's a good idea to ignore context completely. Or at least be ready to ignore it completely.

    Also, JY videos can be hit or miss. As you can see with this one, he skips B (knowing it to be correct) and continues explaining the other answer choices. Like, he's not "doing it live for the first time". I take this to mean that he is going into each question with hindsight of initially attempting it, or at the worst simply having the correct answer choice without attempting it first at all, THEN actually filming the explanation. What does this mean? I can't be sure, but I think it boils down to some of his explanations being not as inspired as they could be. But I'm just some dude on the internet so yea haha

  • Tristan GTristan G Alum Member
    56 karma

    Looks like everyone gave a pretty good explanation, but I'll give my two-cents as well in case it helps. The argument is based the advantages presented to the people that would be buying and using the bulbs. The author says there is a ton of advantages, so you should go into the answer choices, in this case, looking for the statement that has no bearing on the perceived advantages by the consumer. All of the other answer choices discuss relevant aspects to consider when determining whether those advantages really outweigh the costs overall, EXCEPT for B, which only talks about maybe the benefits to the lightbulb companies. If you were buying lightbulbs, or rather, thinking about people who buy them, would you consider what the company cares about when you buy that lightbulb? I, for one, could give zero fucks for what the lightbulb company's profits when I'm buying a product, and I would base it solely on the benefits to myself, and the goals of the lightbulb company would simply have no bearing on my decision. This is why B is correct, because the interests of the lightbulb company or salesman or whoever is irrelevant to the argument, because the argument is predicated on the /consumer's/ perceived benefits and advantages.

  • clear227clear227 Monthly Member
    edited September 2021 350 karma

    Looks like you've got it. Like others said, the most important thing is to focus on the conclusion "everyone should use low watt bulbs"

    All the good answer choices center on whether these bulbs are efficient, or expensive, or long lasting. Relevant stuff. Answer choice (d) is sus because maybe consumer opinions are wrong, but answer choice (b) talks about a random industry that would benefit from the change. It's an attractor choice, because the industry is mentioned in the stimulus to throw you off. It has no bearing on the conclusion ("everyone should use low watt bulbs") so it's wrong.

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum
    1749 karma

    "home lighting industry" That doesn't even imply bulb industry. That could be chandelier stores, who don't care what type of bulbs go in their fixtures. Irrelevant

Sign In or Register to comment.