PT60.S3.Q22 - consumer advocate: there is no doubt

LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
edited November 2017 in Logical Reasoning 13286 karma

So I 100% understand why A is the correct answer. I don't need an explanation on that.

I need an explanation on how answer choice C, when negated, does not destroy our argument.

P1: Government polices have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel.

P2: Result of increased demand the prices of gas have risen.

C: There is not doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline.

Answer choice C: Consumer demand cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

Negated: Consumer demand CAN increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

Okay, so if we place the negated version of AC C into the argument doesn't it fall apart?

If consumer demand can increase without causing gas prices to increase. Then the government policy that increased the consumer demand is not necessarily responsible for the increased cost of gasoline. So his conclusion that there "is no doubt" is completely screwed right?

What am I missing, I feel like it should be obvious but it is not.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-22/

Comments

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    The argument here stipulated that in this case the increase was in consumer demand led to an increase. But that does not necessarily assume that that has to be the case. Perhaps in other cases, increased demand doesn't lead to an increase. Here "because" is just a causal explanation, and the entire sentence is a premise. That is, because does not always give support for a conclusion. For example, I ate a hamburger because I was hungry. The fact that I was hungry is not support for the conclusion that I ate a hamburger.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    BTW, 56 2.25 is great question that brings out this point about "because" not always being an indicator for support for a conclusion. It's a crucially important point, and I recommend that everyone look at that question carefully, and internalize the lesson.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    In our case, my point applies to "as a result," not the word "because."

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
    13286 karma

    @uhinberg said:
    The argument here stipulated that in this case the increase was in consumer demand led to an increase. But that does not necessarily assume that that has to be the case. Perhaps in other cases, increased demand doesn't lead to an increase. Here "because" is just a causal explanation, and the entire sentence is a premise. That is, because does not always give support for a conclusion. For example, I ate a hamburger because I was hungry. The fact that I was hungry is not support for the conclusion that I ate a hamburger.

    Hmm I'm still not sure I get it. He is attributing the rise in price of gas to increased consumer demand, which he says the government caused right?

    If that is the case then, if consumer demand can increase without causing prices to increase, his argument is bollocks.

    I'm still lost lol

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    The cause over here is a premise. The argument is that the government is therefore responsible. The premise can be correct even if it is possible that consumer demand does not necessarily lead to gasoline prices increasing. The consumer advocate is simply stating that in this particular case, these are the facts: the consumer demand led to an increase in prices. On the basis of these facts, he argues that the government is certainly responsible. Why? Because the government caused the increase in demand.

  • OlamHafuchOlamHafuch Alum Member
    2326 karma

    If it was never true that increased consumer demand led to an increase in prices, then yes, the argument would fall apart, because one of the premises would be contradicted (but you wouldn't see such an answer on the LSAT, b/c the LSAT is not really interested in attacking premises), but saying that it is not 100% the case does not at all contradict the premise that in this particular situation, that's what occurred.

  • akistotleakistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    9382 karma

    https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-22/

    P: (Govt policies) =caused=> ↑(Consumer Demand for Fuel) =caused=> ↑($ of Gasoline)
    ———
    C: Government is responsible for ↑($ of Gasoline)

    (C): ↑(Consumer Demand for Fuel) → ↑($ of Gasoline)

    (C) does not have to be true because in some cases it can be that [↑(Consumer Demand for Fuel) and NOT ↑($ of Gasoline)]

Sign In or Register to comment.