Q8 - People always seem to associate

[skapur777]

Overall an easier question and with the MLSAT logical reasoning book in hand, I've had some niftier tricks up my sleeve.

however im confused by the nature of this answer. I don't exactly get what the stimulus is saying. Am i basically being asked to explain this 'paradox'?

As for the answer B itself, how does this reconcile it? He is saying that price is not necessarily an indicator of quality. Doesn't B strengthen this idea, showing that if one buys low quality tea at a high price, they aren't getting 'higher quality tea' just because it is more expensive.

Is the point of this question to help disprove or strengthen the claim?

[noah]

Good question. Take a look at the question stem. On this one, we're asked to resolve the paradox of the counterexample given. It's actually irrelevant what the argument is.

So, the example that high quality teas are the same price as low quality, when -- and here's the part you need to add in yourself -- we'd expect the high quality tea to be more expensive. (I know it's a bit strange to add that in since we're so often NOT adding in things, and, the conclusion seems to suggest we shouldn't think that. However, the conclusion is simply that price doesn't always indicate quality, and here's an example. The act of explaining the counterexample doesn't weaken or strengthen the conclusion - the fact is that the tea is priced as the premise says, we're just trying to explain why.)

So, what would explain why high quality tea is relatively cheap, or, and here's what (B) does, why low quality tea is relatively expensive? Since there's a lot of demand for low quality tea, the price is high.

(A) would affect both qualities of tea.

(C) would affect both qualities of tea.

(D) would lead you to expect that low quality teas would be cheaper!

(E) is out of scope - we don't know what region has to do with any of this.

[Shiggins]

I really like your explanation Noah. I just have one question about the language of the counter example.

It states: The best teas are "often" no more expensive than lower quality teas.

When X is no more expensive than Y:
-X can be equal to Y or less than Y.
-X "can not" be more expensive than Y

But here it is "often" no more expensive, so it can give exceptions to when High quality teas are more expensive. I just want to clarify this language.

[noah]

That's some close reading!

You've correctly analyzed what "no more expensive" means, and you've picked up on the ambiguity of "often."

In the end, we're trying to explain (with (B)), why sometimes the cheap tea is just as expensive. It's OK if this isn't always the case.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question - tell me if not.

[Shiggins]

Thank you Noah, I did get choice B bc I realized how it can make low quality teas have high prices even with some exceptions. You did help clarify the language.

The LSAT does use that language of no more than or no less than very often. Understanding those terms has helped in inference questions and assumptions. Hopefully on test day I can use an understanding of this language to my advantage. Thank you again Noah.