PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 15
One should only buy a frying pan that(59 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(11 more words not shown)
- AMost people who(21 more words not shown)
- BAll of the(34 more words not shown)
- CThe more a(15 more words not shown)
- DThe most expensive(13 more words not shown)
- EMost frying pan(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why pay more for a warranty if I'm never going to use it?
The author has an answer: perhaps the warranty tells us something about the pan itself. Manufacturers don't want to reimburse lots of customers for pans that fail, so offering a warranty might signal confidence that a pan works well and lasts.
But is the promise reliable? A manufacturer could use a warranty as a marketing device and make collecting on it difficult. I'd also question whether a long-lasting pan is what every buyer needs. Suppose I'm living in San Francisco for a year, then moving to New York without my cookware. I may just want an inexpensive pan for that year. Paying extra for many more years of use might not suit my plans.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for something that strongly supports the recommendation. My initial thought is a connection between the qualities the author values and what a buyer should want: why should working well and lasting a long time justify paying extra? That's one route to strengthening. The answers could address another weakness in the reasoning, so we should remain open to them.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This closes a different gap: what if dissatisfied customers simply don't claim their money back? A manufacturer could sell a poor $30 pan with a warranty, knowing most people won't bother filling out forms or pursuing reimbursement. Then a warranty wouldn't be much evidence of quality.
A tells us most buyers would seek reimbursement if the pan failed to work well or last. That makes the promise costly to offer on a poor product. Combine it with the stated premise that manufacturers won't offer a warranty when doing so means reimbursing many customers: the warranty becomes a more credible sign of a product that will perform well.
Even if I personally wouldn't make a claim, other customers' willingness to claim helps explain why the warranty should matter to me. It gives the manufacturer a reason to take the promise seriously. This strengthens the recommendation without guaranteeing that every warranted pan is excellent or resolving every buyer's individual needs.
- B
“At least as well” can mean equally well. If two pans perform identically at purchase, why must I pay more for the one with a warranty I won't use? B also tells us nothing about how long the pans last. It doesn't provide A's reason to regard the manufacturer's promise as meaningful evidence of quality over time.
- C
A link between higher prices and warranties doesn't show that the more expensive pans perform better. This could simply mean paying more for a promise that doesn't help us. The recommendation needs a reason to value the warranty.
- D
This connects high prices with long-lasting performance, but it doesn't connect that performance with warranties. The most expensive pans could lack warranties. D supports a different buying consideration without establishing the author's proposed rule.
- E
A broad promise of customer satisfaction doesn't tell us whether unhappy customers will actually seek reimbursement. If few bother, manufacturers might still offer generous-sounding warranties on poor products. A makes that overlooked customer response matter to the manufacturer's decision.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.