PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 23
Tony: A new kind of videocassette has just(120 more words not shown)
Anna's reply is structured to(8 more words not shown)
- AThe royalties paid(11 more words not shown)
- BVideo rental stores(14 more words not shown)
- CThe largest part(26 more words not shown)
- DThe cost savings(26 more words not shown)
- EIf the price(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How much does the shorter lifespan matter? A tape that lasts half as long might still last longer than the store ever needs it. A tape that wears out after just a few rentals would be a different proposition.
Looking only at Tony's two numbers, the trade looks promising: half the viewings for one third of the cost. If those were the entire costs, buying two cheaper tapes could provide the old tape's number of viewings for two thirds of the price. I'd still want to know about costs involved in replacing them.
Anna supplies a much bigger complication. The physical tape accounts for only 5 percent of what the store pays for a movie. Most of the price is royalties, which must be paid again when the store buys another copy. Cutting the small tape component doesn't cut the whole purchase price to a third.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what conclusion Anna is leading us toward. I'd expect a rejection of Tony's promised savings: the new tapes won't save much, and replacing them could erase the savings altogether. We should keep that tied to the total purchase and replacement costs Anna actually discusses.
Working the answers
- A
Anna says royalties make up most of the purchase price. She doesn't say the royalties are unfairly or excessively high. A large cost can matter to the comparison without being unreasonable. A adds an evaluation that the reply doesn't establish.
- B
The reply doesn't establish that durability always matters more than price or that stores should always buy the highest-quality option. Anna challenges this particular claimed saving because a major cost recurs with replacements. That doesn't create a rule for every possible price and durability combination.
- C
This switches from what the store pays to buy a movie to what a customer pays to rent it. The passage doesn't tell us how rental revenue is divided among royalties, wages, rent, or other costs. C isn't simply Anna's cost fact restated, and it doesn't express her objection to Tony's proposal.
- DCorrect
The savings will be small or nonexistent. The cheaper material changes only a small part of the purchase price, while the shorter lifespan can require additional copies and additional royalty payments.
That is the economic objection Anna develops. It doesn't have to become a claim that the switch will definitely cost more in every store. D allows a small saving while denying the significant economy Tony predicts.
- E
Anna doesn't give us a rule connecting the store's purchase price with the rental fee it charges customers. A store could change its fee for other reasons. More importantly, the reply concerns whether cheaper, less durable copies reduce the store's costs, not what rental-pricing policy the store must follow.
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.