Q11 - A certain credit-card company

[jiyoonsim]

I had a hard time deciding between D and E, and I ended up picking E, mainly because the conclusion mentioned "retail store" and so did E.

I understand why D is the right answer, but I still have a hard time understanding why E is wrong. It seems like D is just a tad bit better than E (since E left a tiny loophole by saying "frequently").

Any help will be appreciated!

[theaether]

E looks like a premise booster. It's one of those answer choices that strengthens the argument but is not an assumption that the argument requires.

Argument: I like cake, therefore I like some sweet things. The assumption required is Cake is a sweet thing.

Premise booster: There are many cakes in my town that are sweet. Does this BOOST my argument? It sure does, because it increases the chances of me eating a sweet cake locally. But is it REQUIRED? Nope. I can order cakes online or get them from somewhere else. But if cakes are all sour or something, then my conclusion that I like some sweet things unravels.

For E: Mail-ins of a lamp costs $20, of which the MRSP is $30. The same lamp is "frequently" offered in retail stores at higher than MSRP, at say, $40. Does the argument require this? No. The argument is just saying customers can use mail-ins to spend less than the MSRP. You don't have to make it so that retail stores charge say, double the MSRP, to make the argument valid. It's a nice condition for the argument if it were true, sure, but it's not required.

[manoridesilva]

Also, E refers to merchandise being sold at prices "higher" than the suggested retail price ('SRP'). However, in the stimulus, it refers to credit card holders being able to purchase the same merchandise at prices "lower" than the SRP. I eliminated E on this basis alone because the store prices don't need to be "higher" than the SRP in order for the credit card holders to get a benefit: the card holders would still pay a lower price by mail than in the stores even if all stores sold at EXACTLY the SRP. Of course, the bargain for the card holder might be minuscule in that scenario, but it doesn't change the fact that they would still get a discount albeit a tiny one. This led me to think E was basically irrelevant and therefore answer D was a good choice because the only remaining difference between the store and mail prices would have to be the postage costs. Hope this helps rather than confuses.

[jiyoonsim]

Also, E refers to merchandise being sold at prices "higher" than the suggested retail price ('SRP'). However, in the stimulus, it refers to credit card holders being able to purchase the same merchandise at prices "lower" than the SRP. I eliminated E on this basis alone because the store prices don't need to be "higher" than the SRP in order for the credit card holders to get a benefit...

Ah, thanks so much for the comment.
So are you saying you eliminated E) because

- stem already said the credit card bonus point price is lower than suggested retail price as a premise
- Thus E) can be eliminated, since it runs directly opposite of the given premise

Or no?

[manoridesilva]

[quote="
Ah, thanks so much for the comment.
So are you saying you eliminated E) because

- stem already said the credit card bonus point price is lower than suggested retail price as a premise
- Thus E) can be eliminated, since it runs directly opposite of the given premise

Or no? [/quote]

Hello. I don't think it is that E 'runs directly opposite' to a given premise. It's more that E doesn't have to be true in order for the argument to make sense. Like I said before, store prices only need to be at or higher than SRP in order to be more expensive than mail order. Ie, store prices don't NEED to be HIGHER than SRP. They just need to be not BELOW SRP otherwise they would fall potentially within the same price bracket as mail order and thereby destroy the argument.

Note that E also refers to 'frequently' sold at higher than the SRP. According to E, there may be some instances when store products are NOT sold at higher than the SRP. Theoretically, in those cases, store products could be sold at LESS than the SRP, which would mean they were possibly the same price or even cheaper than mail order and the argument would then fall apart.

The answer has to be something than ensures that mail order is always cheaper than store prices. D is the only answer that addresses this, albeit that it comes from the angle of postage costs!

In order for E to have been a good choice, it should have read something like: "merchandise available to the customers in stores is never sold below the SRP."

I hope that helps!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Wow! Great explanation manoridesilva... And you guys would like to see another example that's very similar, check out:

PT16, S2, Q14

[eric.zeleznik]

I was going over this question today and I completely see why (D) is right and I actually picked that.

However, I was very tempted by (C). Could someone explain why (C) is wrong?

The phrase in the conclusion "At any given time, therefore..." concerns me.

If (C) were negated, then it would read "The credit-card company does require its customers to accumulate a large number of bonus points before becoming eligible..."

If this were true, it attacks the argument and violates the "At any given time" (because customers would have to wait until they accumulated enough points before they could buy the merchandise for cheap)

Sorry if this is confusing, I just want to make sure I understand completely why all the other choices are wrong.

[bigtree65]

Hello

Im not a tutor but I could explain why I think C) is wrong.

"At any given time, therefore, customers who purchase merchandise using the bonus points..."

The important words here, in my opinion, are "who purchase merchandise". This sentence is talking about customers who are in the process of purchasing merchandise. Therefore even if they did have to acquire some amount of bonus points it doesn't matter because it means they already did. And if they dont need some specific number of points it doesn't matter either. My point is that the bonus points don't matter as a necessary condition when we're talking about people who are already purchasing something rather than people who want to purchase something.

Hope this helps

[WaltGrace1983]

Hello

Im not a tutor but I could explain why I think C) is wrong.

"At any given time, therefore, customers who purchase merchandise using the bonus points..."

The important words here, in my opinion, are "who purchase merchandise". This sentence is talking about customers who are in the process of purchasing merchandise. Therefore even if they did have to acquire some amount of bonus points it doesn't matter because it means they already did. And if they dont need some specific number of points it doesn't matter either. My point is that the bonus points don't matter as a necessary condition when we're talking about people who are already purchasing something rather than people who want to purchase something.

Hope this helps

In addition, I think it is important to note the "using bonus points." Like you say, these people are already using the bonus points. We don't care about people that are still acquiring them.

[pretty_shy96]

Can someone please explain the logic and the mechanics to answering this question from beginning to end? All of the replies are focused on why D is the correct answer.

[maryadkins]

This is a necessary assumption question. So we're looking for an assumption that, if not true, causes the argument to fall apart.

The core here is:

people can use their bonus points to buy stuff lower than retail price

-->

anytime customers use the points, they spend less than they would otherwise

But what if some other expense exists? What if what they spend overall is more because they have to pay for the credit card, or for fees, or for shipping?

(D) gets at this. If we negate (D) and say, "The amount credit-card customers pay for shipping by mail DOES increase the amount they spend to an amount greater than they would spend if they bought in stores," the argument falls apart. This means it is the right answer.

(A) is out of scope because we aren't comparing the credit-card company to other credit-card companies.

(B) is like (A)—We're talking about items that are both available with points AND sold in stores for retail value.

(C) may seem tempting, but let's negate it and see if the argument is destroyed. What if it does require them to accumulate a bunch? Well, then they have a bunch...the people the stimulus is about have gotten enough points to buy the merch, regardless of how many points that is. So (C) doesn't actually matter. We're past that point.

(E) doesn't need to be true for the reasons discussed above in the thread.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if not.