PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 21
Economics professor: Marty's Pizza and Checkers Pizza are(85 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AAny company that(29 more words not shown)
- BAny company that(32 more words not shown)
- CAt least one(30 more words not shown)
- DAny company that(22 more words not shown)
- EIf accepting coupons(32 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Checkers could have accepted the coupons without losing money and made some customers happy. Refusing may seem odd. But do we know why it refused?
Maybe the owners are proud and don't want their business involved in a competitor's promotion. Maybe Checkers has a blanket policy against coupons, even ones another restaurant will pay for. Either explanation could differ from a specific desire to hurt Marty's. The professor hasn't ruled those possibilities out.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion doesn't merely say hurting Marty's was one possible motive. It says that was simply the motive. To make that follow, we need a rule that closes off the alternatives: a company refusing a competitor's coupons in these circumstances must be motivated solely by a desire to hurt that competitor. That is a strong assumption, but proving this strong conclusion is the task.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Checkers refused coupons issued by its competitor, and accepting them would have satisfied some potential customers. A says a company doing that is motivated solely by the desire to hurt the competitor. Checkers fits the description, so the rule gives us the motive the professor concludes it had. The rule is broad enough to establish the conclusion without needing to repeat every detail about the other pizza shops.
- B
This starts with a company that wishes to hurt its competitor. That's exactly what we still need to establish about Checkers. Saying a hostile company will refuse coupons doesn't show that every company refusing coupons is hostile. The pride or blanket-policy explanations remain open.
- C
At least one company has done this to hurt a competitor. Which company? It could be a sandwich shop in another town. A single example doesn't establish Checkers's reason for refusing Marty's coupons, even if some details of the example resemble this situation.
- D
Helping a competitor by accepting its coupons doesn't tell us why a company refuses them. Refusing to provide a benefit isn't automatically an attempt to cause harm, and it certainly doesn't establish the company's sole motive. We still need evidence connecting Checkers's actual refusal to its purpose.
- E
This concerns a case in which accepting the coupons would not satisfy customers. Our case explicitly says accepting them would satisfy potential customers. We can't apply a rule about the opposite circumstances, and it doesn't establish the harmful motive the professor attributes to Checkers.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.