PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 7
Consumers will be hurt by the new lower(26 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(16 more words not shown)
- AThe demand for(11 more words not shown)
- BThere is a(11 more words not shown)
- CThe lost production(12 more words not shown)
- DThe demand for(9 more words not shown)
- EThe amount of(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see why a tighter catch limit might mean a higher price. If people still want the same amount of halibut while less is available, buyers may have to pay more.
But I also wonder about the larger claim that consumers will be hurt. What if limiting catches prevents overfishing and keeps the fish available in the future? That is only a possible benefit, not something the passage establishes. It shows why a short-term price increase needn't be the whole story about consumers' interests.
The question narrows our job. It asks us to support the claim that the price will increase, not the further claim that consumers will be hurt. So set aside that broader objection and return to supply and demand.
Imagine the new limit allows five fish while buyers still want twenty at the old price. That helps explain pressure for a price increase. But if the limit falls from twenty to five while buyers want only three, the limit needn't create the shortage the argument relies on.
What we’re looking for
These are simplified examples, not an economic forecast. They show why the amount people want matters along with the amount available. I'd look for something maintaining that demand as supply is restricted.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Demand won't decrease substantially after the restrictions. That supports the picture we need: less halibut is available without a large drop in people's desire to buy it. If demand fell sharply along with supply, the expected upward pressure on price could disappear. A makes that countervailing change less of a concern. It needn't say demand is perfectly constant to strengthen the forecast.
- B
A connection of some kind isn't enough. What happens to demand when the catch limit changes? If demand drops greatly, the connection could work against a price increase. B doesn't tell us how the two quantities relate in this situation, so it doesn't support the direction of price change the argument predicts.
- C
This rules out one increase in the supply of other fish. But the claim we need to support concerns the price of halibut, and we still don't know how much halibut people will want. Substitutes might matter, but C doesn't establish that halibut demand stays high as its supply falls. A addresses that missing part directly.
- D
“Affected” doesn't tell us how demand for other fish changes, much less what happens to halibut demand or price. People might switch toward other fish or respond in some different way. We can't supply a particular effect that the answer leaves unspecified.
- E
Halibut could represent a tiny share of all fish consumed and still become more expensive when its supply is restricted. Its share of the overall fish market doesn't show how demand for halibut changes after these limits. That is the relationship relevant to the forecast.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.