LR Drill Set 8, Question 10

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  Oakgrove's usual prices are typically more than 20 percent above the prices of comparable furniture elsewhere. That directly supports our concern: a discount from a high starting price needn't beat a competitor's ordinary price. For example, if another store charges $100 and Oakgrove normally charges $130, even a 20 percent discount leaves Oakgrove at $104. Be careful with the percentages: just over a 20 percent markup would not necessarily survive a full 20 percent discount, because the percentages use different starting amounts. A doesn't prove that every sale item remains more expensive. It does undermine the ad's confidence that its discounts establish the best bargains.

• B

  This tells us what happens when the other stores hold sales. The argument is about bargains available now, when those stores aren't discounting their furniture. Their sale prices could be lower than Oakgrove's current prices while their current regular prices remain higher. B would matter to someone deciding whether to wait for another sale, but it doesn't establish a better current bargain.

• C

  Higher quality could help make Oakgrove's furniture a good bargain even if it costs more. Quality isn't meaningless when assessing value. But C gives Oakgrove a potential advantage; it doesn't show that its advertised bargains are worse than the alternatives. A's comparison is stronger because it explicitly uses comparable furniture.

• D

  An unpleasant motive doesn't prevent a current deal from being a good one. Oakgrove could offer excellent prices now in the hope of eliminating competitors and raising prices later. The later pricing plan doesn't refute its claim about the bargains currently available.

• E

  Higher financing charges could matter to a buyer who borrows money for the purchase. But we don't know how much those charges add or whether they outweigh a lower purchase price, and a buyer who doesn't finance wouldn't pay them. A more directly attacks the advertised price comparison across comparable items. E's extra expense for a subset of buyers doesn't establish that the current discounts fail to offer good value.