PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 15
For a ten-month period, the total monthly sales(91 more words not shown)
If the statements above are(9 more words not shown)
- AThe total monthly(25 more words not shown)
- BOver the three(25 more words not shown)
- CIf the emission(29 more words not shown)
- DA decrease in(18 more words not shown)
- ESince the imposition(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Marvel sells the same number of cars but gets a smaller piece of the market. Then the whole market must have grown.
Use simple numbers. Suppose the country initially sells 1,000 new cars a month and Marvel sells 100. During the first ten months, the country's total stays at 1,000 while Marvel doubles to 200. Its share rises from 10 percent to 20 percent, and other companies' combined sales fall from 900 to 800. Those numbers illustrate the stated pattern; they aren't the reported totals.
Now hold Marvel at 200, as the passage does for its sales after the new standards. If its share falls to 10 percent, the total has to be 2,000. The other companies would sell 1,800. Marvel hasn't lost sales in this example; it has lost share because the rest of the market has grown.
What we’re looking for
Did the emission standards cause that change? We don't know. Other events could have affected demand, so the fact that the change followed the standards doesn't settle their effect. The question asks what cannot be true. I'd use the sales-and-share relationship to find a contradiction, rather than inventing a cause.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This says the other companies' combined sales decreased after the standards. But Marvel's sales stayed constant while its share fell. The total market therefore increased, which requires more sales by the other companies in combination.
If their combined sales had instead fallen while Marvel stayed constant, the total would shrink and Marvel's share would rise. That's the opposite of the reported result. A cannot fit the facts.
- B
This concerns the three months before the standards. The other companies could have lost share during those months as Marvel gained it. That is compatible with the ten-month pattern.
We shouldn't claim the ten-month change proves what happened in every shorter interval. Marvel's gains could have occurred unevenly. But B only needs to be possible to avoid being the answer, and nothing rules out the decrease it describes.
- C
We aren't told what would have happened without the standards. Perhaps some other development was pushing Marvel's share down, and the standards partly offset it. Then its share could have fallen even more without them. That is a hypothetical possibility, not the established explanation, but the given facts don't rule it out.
- D
Sales could decline later even though they increased over the period described. The passage gives no rule requiring continued growth if the standards remain. D makes a future prediction we can't establish, but also can't reject as impossible from these facts.
- E
Profit per car isn't the number of cars sold or the percentage of the market. Marvel could sell the same number while earning more on each sale, perhaps because its price or costs changed. The passage supplies no profit figures that would contradict E. We need the direct numerical conflict in A, not merely an unproved claim.
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.