PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 5
A newly developed light bulb is much more(57 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(8 more words not shown)
- AThe light generated(21 more words not shown)
- BMost people who(17 more words not shown)
- CA manufacturer of(22 more words not shown)
- DThe new bulb(19 more words not shown)
- EA competing manufacturer(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Cost-effective in what way? A bulb might save money by using less electricity, costing less to buy, or lasting longer. Here the stated advantage is durability: it costs about three times as much but can last up to ten times as long.
If a $3 bulb lasted as long as ten $1 bulbs, the extra upfront cost would pay off. But that wouldn't be the only thing I'd consider. Does it shine brightly enough? Do I like the color of the light? A long-lasting bulb isn't much use to me if I dislike living under it.
The analyst also has a plausible concern about how people shop. A customer may prefer the lower price on the shelf over a possible saving spread across years. Advertising the long-term benefit doesn't establish that buyers will value it enough to pay more today.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the EXCEPT: four choices support the prediction of poor sales, and one does not. Our guesses about light quality and upfront price could explain poor sales. We should eliminate choices that offer that sort of explanation and keep the one that supplies no reason to expect the bulbs to sell badly.
Working the answers
- A
This supports poor sales. A bulb that produces a color most people find unappealing has a disadvantage that longer life doesn't erase. This matches our concern about whether people like the actual light. Even if the bulb saves money over time, buyers may prefer a different lighting experience.
- B
This supports the analyst and matches the upfront-price prediction. The new bulb costs about three times as much to buy. If most buyers prefer the inexpensive option over a more expensive, durable one, the advertised longevity may fail to attract them.
Keep the two claims separate: being cost-effective over time and being popular at the point of purchase. B can support poor sales without disputing the long-term advantage. Because we need the exception, a choice that makes this connection well must be eliminated.
- C
The competing manufacturer's claim could discourage customers concerned about electricity bills. It needn't be accurate to affect sales; people may hesitate if they believe it or become uncertain about the advertised savings. We aren't asked to establish actual electricity consumption. We're looking for something that could support a sales forecast, and adverse publicity can do that.
- DCorrect
Offering packages of one through four bulbs doesn't give us a reason to predict poor sales. It may make buying convenient for customers who need different quantities. At minimum, nothing here establishes an unattractive restriction or other obstacle to purchasing the bulbs.
We don't have to prove the packaging will increase sales. We need only see that, unlike the other choices, it provides no stated disadvantage supporting the analyst's prediction.
- E
This supports poor sales by introducing a competitor with a better combination of price and longevity. The alternative lasts ten times as long as a conventional bulb yet costs less than a conventional bulb. That could draw customers away from the three-times-as-expensive new bulb. It doesn't prove nobody will buy the new bulb, but it makes disappointing sales more plausible.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.