LSAT 148 – Section 1 – Question 02

LSAT 148 - Section 1 - Question 02

December 2016

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:02

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
PT148 S1 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Math +Math
A
85%
163
B
1%
153
C
5%
156
D
10%
155
E
0%
155
138
147
155
 +Medium 142.771 +SubsectionEasier

Five years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson Appliance Company accounted for 50 percent of all sales of hair dryers nationwide. Currently, however, Wilson Appliance’s product makes up only 25 percent of such sales. Because of this decline, and because the average net income that Wilson receives per hair dryer sold has not changed over the last 5 years, the company’s net income from sales of the product must be only half of what it was 5 years ago.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Wilson’s net income from sales of hair dryers must be half of what it was 5 years ago. This is because 5 years ago, the hair dryer from Wilson was 50% of all hair dryers sold nationwide. But today it’s only 25% of all hair dryers sold nationwide. In addition, the net income Wilson gets per hair dryer sold has stayed the same.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author takes for granted that there hasn’t been an increase in overall hair dryer sales nationwide. In other words, the author overlooks that even though Wilson’s market share has gone down, it can still be selling more hair dryers than it did 5 years ago.

A
mistakes a decline in the market share of Wilson Appliance’s hair dryer for a decline in the total sales of that product
The author thinks the decline in market share (from 50% to 25%) implies a decline in overall sales of Wilson hairdryers. This is flawed, because the overall hairdryer market could have increased, such that 25% of the market involves more sales than 50% of the market 5 years ago.
B
does not provide specific information about the profits hair dryers generate for the companies that produce them
Hair dryer profits are irrelevant, because the conclusion is just about net income from sales of hair dryers. Profits involve income minus expenses.
C
fails to discuss sales figures for Wilson Appliance’s products other than its hair dryers
The argument doesn’t need to comment on sales of other products. The argument’s conclusion is concerned only with Wilson’s hair dryer.
D
overlooks the possibility that the retail price of Wilson Appliance’s hair dryer may have increased over the past 5 years
The price of the hair dryer is irrelevant because we already know that the net income Wilson receives per hair dryer hasn’t changed. Maybe the price went up, maybe it went down — regardless, the net income is the same.
E
provides no independent evidence that Wilson Appliance’s hair dryer is one of the company’s least profitable products
The argument doesn’t conclude or assume that the hair dryer is one of the company’s least profitable products.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 148 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply