Q15 - Camille: Manufacturers of water-saving faucets

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Rebecca asserts that she has had lower water bills since she installed a water-saving faucet and so the manufacturers claims about how much money can be saved by installing a water-saving faucet are not exaggerated.

Answer Anticipation:
The issue with Rebecca's argument is that her evidence is too weak to support her conclusion. Just because she saved money on her water bill doesn't mean that the manufacturers claims have not been exaggerated. If she saved less than what the manufacturers claimed, then she would serve as a relevant counterexample. In order to support her position that the manufacturers claims have not been exaggerated, we need to know that she saved as much money on her water bill as the manufacturers claimed.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) is out of scope. The argument is not about the total cost of operation but rather the impact of using a water-saving faucet on one's water bill.

(B) is correct. This connects Rebecca's savings with the amount asserted by the manufacturers. If you negate answer choice (B) and say that she did not save as much as the manufacturers claimed, then she would be a relevant counterexample and Rebecca's argument would be ruined.

(C) is out of scope. The issue is what Rebecca assumed to be true, not what is necessary for the manufacturers to have a solid argument. Rebecca's position does not rely on the manufacturers claims being consistent.

(D) is out of scope. We aren't concerned with others, but rather with the relationship between Rebecca's assertion and those of manufacturers of water-saving faucets.

(E) is out of scope. The potential future savings of additonal water-saving faucets doesn't play a role in whether her current water-saving faucet supports the manufacturers claim about the savings to be had from water-saving faucets.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning: Comparison

#officialexplanation

[pinkdatura]

C: run longer-->exaggerate the amount of money saved
R: stands out by showing her water bill is lowered--> not exaggerate

A cost of installing fee is irrelevant, it talks about the capability of faucet saving water, even she pays more for the faucet than the money saved on the bill. the capability faucet saving amount of water is a stable variable

B whether there's controversy between manufactures is out of scope, classic mistake

D satisfy is not relevant

E increase overall saving is not relevant

I am wondering if my logic of eliminating answers is correct?

Thx

[cyruswhittaker]

Camille: Because the faucets create such drips, people using them often let the faucet run longer than normal. Therefore, you don't save as much $ as the manufacturers say you do.

Rebecca: My bills have been lower since I installed a water-saving faucet! Therefore, it is not true that the manufacturers' claims are exaggerated.

But let's say that the manufacturers' claim is that the faucet will reduce the bills by 50%. Then let's say that Rebecca DID save money on her bills, but only 10%. It would be clear that this does not refute Camille's position.

So the point is that Rebecca doesn't actually address the point of whether the amount of money saved is as much as what the manufacturers claim.

That makes B the correct answer. Remember, the manufacturers' claim IS under attack here; it is not out-of-scope.

[noah]

Cyrus is on to it. BTW, I edited the post to take out direct quotations to respect LSAC's copyrights.

Camille complains that the companies making water-saving faucets are overstating how much you'll save using their faucets. Why? Because people have to let those faucets run longer to compensate for the lower water pressure.

Rebecca disagrees--saying that those companies are not overstating the savings. Why? Because she has had lower water bills.

Rebecca's argument is questionable for two reasons (that's all I'm seeing at the moment, there are probably more):

1. Maybe her water bill is lower for a different reason.

2. Is her lower water bill reflecting the level of savings the companies say will happen?

(B) references the second flaw.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is tempting, but we're only talking about savings on water bills.
(C) is wrong because there is no discussion of the relationship between multiple claims. More importantly, you should not see flaw questions as weaken questions. They will stick more closely to the assumption. Indeed, they might bring up a counter-example to show what the argument is assuming, but that would not be as far afield as (C).
(D) is out of scope--satisfied?
(E) is silly: Rebecca never talks about what would happen if anything more is installed.

[da.chou]

I looked at this question for maybe 15 minutes yesterday. How important is the role of R's first sentence?

[cyruswhittaker]

R's first sentence doesn't seem incremental to her argument. It merely concedes the point made by Camille that because of the faucets, people (R is using herself as representing this) let the water run longer.

So if anything, it helps clarify that R's argument is not directed towards attacking Camille's support.

However, Camille's actual support and conclusion come in sentences two and three, respectively.

[haeaznboiyoung]

Can anyone shed a little light on why C is wrong? Maybe mistakenly, but I tend to see Flaw with "takes for granted" stems as basically being weaken Q's able to have outside information brought in.

I saw C as R taking for granted the fact that manufacturer's claims are the same with everyone. What if, for example, manufacturers base their claims on a case by case basis? That for C, the manufacturer may have claimed to save 30% of her bill and did not meet that claim whereas they would claim to save 10% of R's bill and met that claim?

[noah]

(C) is wrong because there is no discussion of the relationship between multiple claims.

More importantly, you should not see flaw questions as weaken questions. They will stick more closely to the assumption. Indeed, they might bring up a counter-example to show what the argument is assuming, but that would not be as far afield as (C).

Make sense?

[haeaznboiyoung]

Yes, that makes a lot more sense. I will learn to look for answers that keep within the scope of the argument more.. or try to heh. Flaw questions always tend to do that to me...

Thank you very much for the clarification!

[xinglipku]

Can I say in Camille's first sentence, "the amount of money saved" just means the money water-saving faucet can save, but doesn't mean the net money that can be saved deducted of installation cost?

[noah]

Can I say in Camille's first sentence, "the amount of money saved" just means the money water-saving faucet can save, but doesn't mean the net money that can be saved deducted of installation cost?

That's a fair assumption, especially since Rebecca is only talking about the bills--plus, just because, for example, one person over pays a contractor by $1,000 to install the faucet, the manufacturer's claims can still be valid.

[jm.kahn]

The reason i didn't select B was that because B doesn't say "she saved at least as much on her water bills as the manufacturers' claims suggested."

The argument doesn't presume that she saved exactly the same as manufacturers' claims. It only suggests that she saved at least as much. Rebecca can save more than manufacturers' claims and still conclude that manufacturers' claims are not exaggerated.

Can some expert explain this issue?
I ended up choosing A precisely because of this issue with choice B. Also, why is C not a good choice as if the manufacturers' claims are inconsistent with each other than that would make the point of those claims being exaggerated somewhat moot? In that manner, C can be a flaw.

[Mab6q]

The reason i didn't select B was that because B doesn't say "she saved at least as much on her water bills as the manufacturers' claims suggested."

The argument doesn't presume that she saved exactly the same as manufacturers' claims. It only suggests that she saved at least as much. Rebecca can save more than manufacturers' claims and still conclude that manufacturers' claims are not exaggerated.

Can some expert explain this issue?
I ended up choosing A precisely because of this issue with choice B. Also, why is C not a good choice as if the manufacturers' claims are inconsistent with each other than that would make the point of those claims being exaggerated somewhat moot? In that manner, C can be a flaw.

I would really appreciate some clarity here as this is the exact same problem I was having with this question. Does it come from the tricky negation of B. So I didn't feel B negated would kill the argument, because if she didn't save as much, but possibly MORE, then B wouldn't be necessary. However I spent sometime looking over it and I came to the conclusion that if she did save more, that would include her saving as much as well. Is my line of thought correct on that one?

If it is, I guess the important thing to take away for me is being careful with the negation test.

Thanks.

[obobob]

Can someone address the issues from the above two users? I am also having a similar question!

[ohthatpatrick]

No, we will NEVER answer this question!
AH HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHHAA [maniacal laughter trails off]

I think you guys are raising a great point with (B).

I don't think LSAT was using "as much" to mean "precisely as much and no more than that". If they want to establish that clear of a meaning than more precise wording is required on their part.

f.e.
(B) she saved exactly as much on her water bills as the claims suggested


If you were asking someone,
"Did you like that chicken mole as much as Peter said you would?"
"Did Sophia like Disneyland as much as she thought she would?
"Did you guys end up doing as much snorkeling as you hoped you would?"

most people don't hear that in a strict context of "precisely as much", but rather "at least as much".

We could usually paraphrase those questions equivalently as,
"Did the chicken mole / Disneyland live up to the hype?"
or
"Were you disappointed by it?"

If you interpret the question that way, then "NO" means "it fell short of expectations", and YES means "it at least met expectations", not "it exactly met expectations".

Ultimately, I still think you guys have a good gripe that LSAT was pretty loose with language there, relying on a conversational interpretation while offering an ambiguous meaning.

But LSAT always comes down to "best available answer", so what are we going to argue is a better answer?

Not to mention, it's very possible that manufacturers claimed that "water-saving faucets will save you at least 20% on your water bill".

So saving as much as the manufacturer claimed could mean saving "at least 20%", not "exactly 20%".

In arguing with (B)'s wording, we'd be adding an assumption that the manufacturer claimed an exact amount, rather than some "at least minimum" of money savings.

Hope this helps.

[SabrinaM590]

Can someone explain why the QSTEM is a Necessary Assumption? And then explain why it isn't a Flaw QTYPE?

Thanks in advance!

[JeremyK460]

Installing The Water-Faucet Is Not Fundamental To Conclusion:
The action of Rebecca ‘installing the water-faucet’ is secondary (it isn’t fundamental to Rebecca’s argument) to the fact that she’s ‘saving on her water-bill’. Just like the action of ‘investing in Tesla’ has less to-do with the conclusion than the fact that ‘I gained money from my investment in Tesla’. Likewise, Rebecca’s conclusion that M-faucet’s claims about how much they can save is not exaggerated is more-concerned with the evidence that she’s essentially saving by lowering her monthly water bill. My ‘investing in Tesla’ merely establishes that I have Tesla stock; likewise, Rebecca’s ‘installing her M-faucet’ merely establishes that she in fact has an M-faucet.

Answer (A) talks about installation cost, but the argument doesn’t indicate/suggest WHO installed it. This is crucial, because it’s just as likely that Rebecca installs it herself for free as it is that she gets someone to install it for a price. The installation could’ve cost 1000-dollars just as reasonably as it could’ve cost 0-dollars. The point is, it isn’t necessary for the idea that M-faucet’s claims about the amount that would be saved are accurate and they follow from the idea that less money is spent monthly.

Answer (A) might impact a claim like: having an M-faucet saves more money in general than not having an M faucet at all. But that isn’t Rebecca’s conclusion; rather her conclusion is: M-faucet’s claims about how much they can save is not exaggerated (i.e ‘M-faucets live up to their own hype’).

In other words: perhaps installation amounted to 200 bucks, and total savings amounted to 100 bucks. Yes, the overall amount saved is out-totaled by the amount it cost to install, so M-faucets wouldn’t be worth it in general. But Rebecca’s argument isn’t about whether M-faucets are worth it in general. Rebecca’s argument is about whether M-faucet’s claims about savings (produced from M-faucets) isn’t exaggerated.

It can still be true that M-faucet didn’t exaggerate their claims (about the amount that could be saved from it) DESPITE the fact that ‘installation cost counterbalances the total amount of money saved’ BECAUSE of overlooked considerations like: what if M-faucet claims it can save a total of 20 bucks, and while installation costs 100 bucks (or even a trillion bucks; fuck it), Rebecca still ended up saving a total of 20 dollars. Rebecca still saved as much money as M-faucet claimed. So, M-faucet’s claims weren’t exaggerated.

When I got to answer (B) and negated it, I thought: she didn’t save as much as M-faucet said she would have. This means that M-faucet said Rebecca would save 100, but instead Rebecca saved 99. At first, I didn’t think it’d be fair to say that because M-faucet claimed that Rebecca would save 100 dollars when Rebecca ended up only saving 99 dollars means the M-faucet exaggerated their claim. BUT it doesn’t matter whether it would be fair to call M-faucet exaggerators. Even if M-faucet claimed Rebecca would save 100, but Rebecca only saved 99, M-faucet still technically exaggerated their claim.

(C) M’s claims about the amount of savings from the installation are consistent; M’s claims about what to expect to save are not consistent. One claims says 100 dollars can be saved and the other says 99 can be saved. These aren’t consistent. I don’t think this sort of consistency is necessary for the likelihood that M doesn’t exaggerate about the amount a customer can save is true.

(D) This is about people’s satisfaction towards the low-pressure water, but the argument is about whether M’s claims are exaggerated. People being satisfied with the low-pressure of M’s faucets doesn’t entail much about whether the degree of M’s claims about the amount that can be saved.

(E) More of M’s faucets won’t increase R’s savings. This seems to be about what happens when you install ‘more than one M-faucet’ while the argument seems to be about what happens when you install ‘a single M-faucet’ (that the customer will save MORE than M-faucet claims).

Analogy Argument:
Some claim that stock-brokers exaggerate the amount of money that can be gained from investing in Tesla. Because Tesla stock decreases more than it increases. But, despite the fact that Tesla stock decreases more than it increases, since investing in Tesla stock last month, I gained money. So, stock-brokers don’t exaggerate the amount of money that can be gained from investing in Tesla.

Analogy Answer (A):
Answer (A) analogy would say: investing in Tesla stock was more money than the amount of money I gained from its increase.

Analogy Answer (B):
I gained as much as the stock-brokers said I’d gain.