LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 19

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 19

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:12

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT102 S4 Q19	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Causal Reasoning +CausR Net Effect +NetEff	A 80% 166 B 18% 163 C 1% 153 D 1% 161 E 1% 157	128 144 161	+Medium	146.127 +SubsectionMedium

Inez: In these poor economic times, people want to be sure they are getting good value for their money. I predict people would be more willing to buy antiques at our fair if we first have the objects inspected by professional appraisers who would remove any objects of questionable authenticity.

Anika: I disagree with your prediction. Our customers already are antiques experts. Furthermore, hiring professional appraisers would push up our costs considerably, thus forcing us to raise the prices on all our antiques.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Anika rejects inez’s prediction. As evidence, Anika points out customers are already antique experts and that hiring antique experts would cause prices to increase.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Anika counters the position held by Inez. She does this by predicting a cause-and-effect relationship: if professional appraisers were hired, this would cause the price of antiques to increase.

indicating that a particular plan would have an effect contrary to the anticipated effect

The anticipated effect Inez predicts is that people would be more willing to buy antiques. On the other hand, Anika claims that hiring professional appraisers would cause prices for antiques to increase and thus may not result in people being more willing to buy.

claiming that a particular plan should not be adopted because, while effective, it would have at least one undesirable consequence

Anika does not believe that Inez’s plan would be effective. Rather, she believes that Inez’s plan would have an effect directly contrary to the goal of selling antiques.

arguing that an alternative plan could achieve a desired result more easily than the plan originally proposed

Anika does not present an alternative plan. Rather, she only addresses the weakness of Inez’s plan.

questioning the assumption that authorities are available who have special knowledge of the problem under discussion

Anika does not question the existence of professional appraisers that could authenticate antiques. Rather, she questions the assumption why professional appraisers are needed given that customers are already experts.

offering a counterexample in order to show that a particular general claim is too broadly stated

Anika does not present a counterexample. Rather, she makes a general prediction about the unintended consequences of Inez’s plan.

LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 19

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 19

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel