SudsMeister wrote:
Quote:
There are far fewer independent bookstores than there were 20 years ago, largely because chain bookstores prospered and multiplied during that time. Thus, chain bookstores' success has been to the detriment of book consumers, for the shortage of independent bookstores has prevented the variety of readily available books from growing as much as it otherwise would have.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
A) book consumers would be better off if there were a greater variety of readily available books than there currently is
B) independent bookstores typically do not sell the kind of books that are available in chain bookstores
Could someone help me with this question?
This is a LSAT Prep Test Question and the OA is A.
But by using the assumption negation technique for B, doesn't the conclusion break down?
Negating B - If Independent bookstores typically sell the kind of books that are available in the chain bookstores, then ideally there is a lack of variety in the first place, and mere expansion of the chain stores can't be detrimental to the consumers.
Also, is choice A not rephrasing of the stimulus?
The stimulus says that
lack of variety is detrimental to the consumers.
Am I reading too much between the lines when I am assuming that the above statement's meaning encompasses the idea that
if there was not a lack of variety, the consumers would not be in a bad situation, and thus would be better off.
If the Q already provides this as a premise, we shouldn't have to use this as an assumption.
Best
Suds
SudsMeister , belated welcome to GMAT Club.
Your two posts seem to contain similar questions. If I miss something from the other post, let me know.
You:
But by using the assumption negation technique for B, doesn't the conclusion break down?Answer: No.
You:
is choice A not rephrasing of the stimulus? (You mean: Doesn't answer A simply rephrase part of the stimulus?)
Answer: No.
The negation technique is not always the best method to use.
I think it's easier to "bridge the gap." (When I took the LSAT and faced more than 50 of these questions, I used negation one time.)
This question is a lot
simpler (not easier) than it seems.
LSAC rarely writes questions this obvious, a fact that seems to have confused many people.
• What does the prompt say?The assumption on which the conclusion relies is that variety is a good thing. That assumption is never stated. The end.You wrote
Quote:
The stimulus says that lack of variety is detrimental to the consumers.
No.
The stimulus absolutely does not say that lack of variety is detrimental to anything or anyone.
The conclusion says that
chain stores' success is detrimental to the consumers.
Not one word in that prompt says that variety is a good thing.
Your mind is filling in the blanks. Very easy mistake.
But I can draw an opposite conclusion from the very same premises. I do so below.
The prompt says that
-- (1) chain stores
caused the steep decline in the number of independent bookstores
*caused: there are far fewer . . .
largely because-- (2) the shortage of independent bookstores has
caused less variety in books than there would have been otherwise
*caused: the shortage. . . has
prevented . . . the variety
-- (3) The conclusion: Thus, chain bookstores' success has been to the detriment of book consumers.
• Reasoning forwardsLet's reason forwards in the chain of causation.
↑↑ chain stores = ↓↓ independent stores = ↓↓ variety of books.
Stop.
Less variety is a neutral fact. -- Nothing says that less variety is bad.
-- Nothing says that less variety is good.
There is simply less variety than there would have been if chain stores had not decreased the number of independent bookstore.
If I were a dictator-in-the-making or a reactionary, I could write this conclusion:
Thus, the success of chain stores has been to the benefit of book consumers.What am I assuming in this opposite conclusion?
I am assuming that lack of variety in books is good.
Wingnuts have been arguing
against variety in literature for millennia.
Plenty of people in the U.S. believe in book censorship.
This writer goes in a different direction.
She concludes,"Thus, chainstores' success has been to the detriment of consumers."
In order to conclude from the mere fact of less variety (caused by chain stores' success) that consumers have been harmed (by chain stores' success),the writer must assume that more variety would have been to the benefit of consumers.
• Option B? Negating B? Watch the "not."
B) independent bookstores typically do not sell the kind of books that are available in chain bookstores
The negation: Independent bookstores typically do sell the kind of books that are available in chain bookstores.
Stop.That negation does not destroy the conclusion.
Independent bookstores could be selling many additional kinds of books that are not sold in chain stores.
→→ [Negated B] Independent bookstores sell the kinds of books that are available in chain bookstores
AND
→→ independent bookstores sell many other kinds of books [that chain bookstores do not sell].I can say the highlighted words whether we negate B or not.
Quote:
Am I reading too much between the lines when I am assuming that the above statement's meaning encompasses the idea that if there was not a lack of variety, the consumers would not be in a bad situation, and thus would be better off
If you can write a sentence like that one, you can reason forwards. "Bridge the gap" when negation fails.
Why are you reading between the lines at all?
Maybe I don't understand what you mean.
When I tutor for the LSAT, sometimes I want to march around with a sign that says: use the words you are given and nothing else.
Why do you assume that the meaning encompasses answer A?
You haven't argued your case. You've asserted it.
I will be happy to listen to your arguments.
If you are not convinced by my analysis, spell out your arguments and support them with words from the prompt.
I hope that answer helps.
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!