PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 9
Sales manager: Last year the total number of(97 more words not shown)
If the sales figures cited(18 more words not shown)
- AThe company opened(10 more words not shown)
- BThe company's meals(7 more words not shown)
- CThe quality of(11 more words not shown)
- DThe prices of(10 more words not shown)
- EThe market share(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Buying a meal doesn't necessarily mean you're enthusiastic about it. Imagine being hungry at an airport with only one food counter open. You might buy an unappealing sandwich because it's the available option. Higher sales alone don't explain what customers think.
The accountant adds an important distinction: the company sold more meals overall, but every restaurant operating in both years sold fewer. That makes me think about new locations. Additional restaurants could raise the company total even while each continuing location lost sales.
Then the accountant jumps to a conclusion about desirability too. What if customers still like the meals but have less money to spend? Neither speaker has established what causes the sales pattern.
What we’re looking for
This question asks what must be true if the sales figures are accurate. So set the disputed explanations aside and connect the numbers. The extra meals must come from outside the group of restaurants that operated in both years. My prediction is that the company opened at least one new restaurant.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If every restaurant selling meals last year had also operated the year before, each would have sold fewer meals. Adding those smaller amounts couldn't give us a higher company total. Any closed restaurants would only remove sales, not explain an increase. At least one new restaurant must have contributed sales.
For a simple illustration, suppose ten continuing restaurants each fall from ten meals to nine. Their combined sales fall from 100 to 90. A new restaurant selling twenty meals would bring the company total to 110. That's how the two figures can coexist.
We don't need every new restaurant to perform well, or even a net increase in the total number of locations. Some old locations could close. We just need an opening that supplies sales beyond the declining continuing group.
- B
We haven't compared the company's meals with competitors' meals. Falling sales at continuing locations could reflect lower customer incomes or other circumstances, not reduced competitiveness. The sales figures alone do not establish B.
- C
Quality could improve while sales fall. Customers might like the improvement but still cut spending. Also, neither speaker's conclusion about desirability is a sales figure the question tells us to accept. We can't turn that disputed conclusion into proof about quality.
- D
Prices could have changed, but the numbers do not require that explanation. New locations could account for the higher total while every restaurant charged the same prices as before. D is possible, not necessary.
- E
Market share compares this company's sales with the whole market. We know neither competitors' sales nor the market's total. This company's total could rise while its share rose, fell, or stayed the same. We need those other numbers before drawing a conclusion about share.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.