PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 26
Commentator: For a free market to function properly,(58 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the commentator's(11 more words not shown)
- APeople do not(18 more words not shown)
- BSome persons who(12 more words not shown)
- CNot all auto(6 more words not shown)
- DMany auto repair(11 more words not shown)
- EBecause it is(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The commentator gives requirements for a properly functioning free market. Every prospective buyer must be able to contact many independent sellers and compare their prices with what the item is worth. Think of comparing ten dealerships instead of having access to just one. That could help a buyer assess the offers.
Why, then, doesn't auto repair qualify? We are told many shops advertise prices and offer written estimates. My first question would be whether buyers can actually contact enough independent shops. Perhaps seeing an advertised price isn't the kind of contact the commentator means: maybe buyers need to call, ask questions, and obtain more information. But the passage hasn't established any such failure yet.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, we need to show that the industry fails one of the stated requirements. Meeting those requirements wouldn't alone prove a market functions properly, but failing one would be enough to show that it doesn't. Let's look for the required ability buyers lack.
Working the answers
- A
Usually going to a familiar shop is a choice about how to shop. The rule concerns what buyers are able to do. Someone could keep returning out of habit while being perfectly able to contact other shops and compare prices with value. A doesn't establish a failure of the requirement.
- BCorrect
This points to the part of the requirement my initial contact question left open: comparing price with what the repairs are worth. Some buyers cannot determine that worth. Knowing the advertised price doesn't give them the other side of the comparison.
The rule requires every prospective buyer to be able to make that comparison. If some shoppers cannot, that universal requirement fails. Under the commentator's rule, the industry therefore cannot be a properly functioning free market. We don't need to prove that buyers can't contact shops as well; failure of this one requirement is enough.
- C
The rule doesn't require every shop to provide a written estimate. Many other shops might supply enough information for a buyer to contact a large number and make the relevant comparisons. A few shops without estimates wouldn't establish that any buyer lacks a required ability. Nor would enough estimates by themselves guarantee a properly functioning market; we simply haven't shown this requirement fails.
- D
A shop can overcharge while a buyer is able to recognize that and go elsewhere. The rule concerns the ability to compare price with worth, not a guarantee that every offered price equals the item's worth. D doesn't show that buyers lack the ability to identify an overpriced offer.
- E
Prices needn't be standardized for buyers to compare them. Different prices may be precisely what makes comparison useful. The passage's requirements concern access to sellers and information about price and worth, not government regulation or uniform prices.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.