PrepTest 127, Section 3, Question 9
There are far fewer independent bookstores than there(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ABook consumers would(17 more words not shown)
- BIndependent bookstores typically(13 more words not shown)
- CThe average bookstore(11 more words not shown)
- DThe average bookstore(11 more words not shown)
- ESome book consumers(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The independent bookstores have lost ground to chains. Does that automatically make book buyers worse off? Perhaps the chains offer a nicer shopping experience or lower prices. Those are possibilities to consider, not advantages the passage has established.
The author gives a more specific reason for calling the change harmful: with fewer independent stores, the variety of readily available books hasn't grown as much as it otherwise would have. Let's accept that. We still need to ask why the extra variety would improve things for consumers.
Imagine a reader who wants the ten best books on a subject. Giving that reader many more options might not help if the preferred books are already available. The reader might care more about finding those books easily than about a wider selection. That example doesn't show that variety is worthless. It shows why less growth in variety doesn't, by itself, establish a loss to consumers.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary-assumption question, I want the connection the author is relying on: consumers would be better off with greater variety. The conclusion calls the chains' success detrimental, so the variety that consumers missed out on must be a benefit for this stated reason to support the conclusion.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This supplies the needed positive relationship between greater variety and consumers' welfare. If consumers would not be better off with the additional selection, failing to provide that selection wouldn't establish the claimed harm. The argument relies on the extra variety making a difference to them.
- B
Independent stores could carry the same bestsellers as the chains and also carry additional books. Their contribution to variety wouldn't require them to avoid the kinds of books chains sell. B also leaves the central issue unresolved: why would that variety make consumers better off?
- C
The passage distinguishes independent ownership from chain ownership, not larger stores from smaller ones. A chain location could be physically small. The argument's link between variety and consumer welfare doesn't require the average store to have grown.
- D
For the same reason, the average store need not have become smaller. The author could make the argument whether average size increased, decreased, or stayed the same. None of those comparisons supplies the assumed benefit of greater variety.
- E
Some consumers might value lower prices more than selection, but the author doesn't need that preference to establish a benefit from variety. Nor are we told that chains offer lower prices. It would be adding a new explanation to treat these consumers' preferences as the reason chains prospered. E is not a required connection in the argument we were given.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.