LSAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- axelleklincke
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 6
- Joined: February 14th, 2011
Q11
Please explain why B is correct (and where the support is in the text) and what makes the other answer choices wrong. I thought the "goodwill" related more to consumers than manufacturers, so answer choice B confused me. Thanks in advance!
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 3 times.
Re: Q11
Hey, there.
In case you've never heard this RC trick before, most question stems that ask something like
"the author mentions ____ in order to"
"the author refers to ___ primarily to"
"the author's use of the term ____ serves to"
have a correct answer that reinforces/paraphrases the point that is made right BEFORE whatever is being asked about in the "_____".
These questions are asking about the purpose of the "_____", how it relates to its nearby ideas/sentences. Normally, the "____" is supporting a broader idea that was just uttered, so that's why the correct answer normally just paraphrases/reinforces the idea made right BEFORE the "____".
In this passage, right before the author discusses goodwill, he says "Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray marketing practices since ..."
The bit about 'goodwill' follows. Just like in LR, in RC the word "since" indicates that the author is supporting a claim. So the reference to "goodwill" is meant to support the claim that "Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray marketing practices".
Note that the adverb "justifiably" is what tells us that the author takes the side of the trademark owners, and that's how we justify the word "ought" in choice (B).
(B) is just reinforcing the idea that the 'goodwill' thing is a reason the trademark owners (i.e. the manufacturers) should be angry.
=== other answers ===
(A) is the opposite of the author's intent. By saying that trademark owners "justifiably argue", we know the author is on their side.
(C) makes a "Fake Comparison". The author never says anything about whether gray marketing is worse within a market vs. across markets. And this "goodwill" thing would apply to both situations, anyway.
(D) Not the point the author is making. The author isn't trying to show us a way that unauthorized distributors fail to benefit from gray marketing... he's showing us a reason that trademark owners are justifiably ticked off by gray marketing.
(E) The author implies that consumers are ALREADY purchasing trademarked goods in the gray market in this fashion, so evidently consumers are willing to pay less and not receive the same pre/post service from the manufacturer.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you still have questions.
In case you've never heard this RC trick before, most question stems that ask something like
"the author mentions ____ in order to"
"the author refers to ___ primarily to"
"the author's use of the term ____ serves to"
have a correct answer that reinforces/paraphrases the point that is made right BEFORE whatever is being asked about in the "_____".
These questions are asking about the purpose of the "_____", how it relates to its nearby ideas/sentences. Normally, the "____" is supporting a broader idea that was just uttered, so that's why the correct answer normally just paraphrases/reinforces the idea made right BEFORE the "____".
In this passage, right before the author discusses goodwill, he says "Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray marketing practices since ..."
The bit about 'goodwill' follows. Just like in LR, in RC the word "since" indicates that the author is supporting a claim. So the reference to "goodwill" is meant to support the claim that "Trademark owners justifiably argue against gray marketing practices".
Note that the adverb "justifiably" is what tells us that the author takes the side of the trademark owners, and that's how we justify the word "ought" in choice (B).
(B) is just reinforcing the idea that the 'goodwill' thing is a reason the trademark owners (i.e. the manufacturers) should be angry.
=== other answers ===
(A) is the opposite of the author's intent. By saying that trademark owners "justifiably argue", we know the author is on their side.
(C) makes a "Fake Comparison". The author never says anything about whether gray marketing is worse within a market vs. across markets. And this "goodwill" thing would apply to both situations, anyway.
(D) Not the point the author is making. The author isn't trying to show us a way that unauthorized distributors fail to benefit from gray marketing... he's showing us a reason that trademark owners are justifiably ticked off by gray marketing.
(E) The author implies that consumers are ALREADY purchasing trademarked goods in the gray market in this fashion, so evidently consumers are willing to pay less and not receive the same pre/post service from the manufacturer.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you still have questions.
-
- royaltoon55
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: February 07th, 2015
Re: Q11
I was down to A and C for this question and ended up picking C over A. Is C wrong because of the usage of the term "the legality of channel flow diversion"? Mostly because channel flow diversion is NOT a legal practice.
________________
http://www.chessrivals.net/
________________
http://www.chessrivals.net/
-
- AlexisE386
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 8
- Joined: January 11th, 2020
Re: Q11
royaltoon55 Wrote:I was down to A and C for this question and ended up picking C over A. Is C wrong because of the usage of the term "the legality of channel flow diversion"? Mostly because channel flow diversion is NOT a legal practice.
________________
http://www.chessrivals.net/
you are looking at another problem. this one is 11, not 10.
5 posts Page 1 of 1