PrepTest 147, Section 1, Question 22
Consumer advocate: Economists reason that price gouging—increasing the(73 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(23 more words not shown)
- AIt disputes one(10 more words not shown)
- BIt is the(5 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(7 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(7 more words not shown)
- EIt denies a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being willing to pay more may tell us that someone has more money, not that they need the item more. A wealthy person could readily buy something they barely care about while a person who urgently needs it can't afford the price.
That's the consumer advocate's challenge to the economists. The advocate's final point is that a price increase sends goods to people with the most money rather than the most need. We might wonder whether those groups sometimes overlap, but the question isn't asking us to attack the conclusion. It's asking what the sentence about willingness to pay is doing in the argument.
What we’re looking for
I'd first identify it as support for that final point. If willingness to pay doesn't track need, we shouldn't assume that charging more selects the neediest buyers. Now we can look for a description of that supporting role.
Working the answers
- A
This isn't a case of explaining an observed event one way and then replacing that explanation with another. The economists offer a justification for calling price gouging efficient: it supposedly allocates goods according to need. The advocate challenges the connection that justification relies on. A's description of competing explanations doesn't capture that precise role.
- B
The advocate uses this claim to support a further point about who receives the goods after a price increase. Asking 'what does this help establish?' leads us to the final claim about money rather than need. The sentence matters because it supports that conclusion, not because it is the argument's ultimate conclusion itself.
- C
This gets the ownership of the claim wrong. The consumer advocate endorses the idea that willingness to pay isn't proportional to need. It is not part of the economists' reasoning that the advocate rejects. The economists depend on the opposing connection between paying more and needing more.
- D
The advocate doesn't question this claim's validity. The advocate asserts it and supports it by pointing out that some people simply cannot afford as much as others. So even if we describe the claim as general, it is a general claim being used by the argument, not one the argument is trying to tear down.
- ECorrect
Let's unpack the wording. 'It' is the sentence we're asked about: willingness to pay is not proportional to need. The claim it denies is that greater willingness to pay tracks greater need. The advocate treats that connection as an assumption in the economists' reasoning, because their defense of price gouging depends on higher prices directing goods to those who need them most. Finally, the reasoning being rejected is the economists' defense, not the advocate's own conclusion. So E describes the sentence's job accurately: it attacks a connection the opposing argument needs.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.