Bunuel wrote:
1990 editorial: Local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever since the 1970s, when a soft drink from a vending machine cost about the same. The price of a soft drink has more than doubled since, so phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editorial’s argument?
(A) A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s.
(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The argument is bullshit. What do soft drinks have to do with pay phones? Absolutely nothing. The argument would make exactly as much sense if it had said, “Cocaine costs only a tiny fraction of what it cost in the 1970s, but local pay phone calls still cost exactly the same as they did in the 1970s. Therefore the price of a local pay phone call should be dramatically reduced.” It’s bullshit either way. It’s a dumb analogy.
We’re asked to weaken the argument. I’m hoping to identify an additional premise that will make it difficult to believe the conclusion, given the evidence. I think an answer like “soft drinks and pay phones have absolutely nothing in common” would be a good answer, because it would make the argument impossible to follow. Imagine if this were the argument: “Soft drinks are twice as expensive now as they were in the 1970s, but pay phones cost the same.
Soft drinks have nothing whatsoever to do with pay phones. Therefore pay phones should increase their prices.” Huh?
A) I don’t see how this does anything to the argument, because we don’t know if there are other costs (besides just the machine) that need to be taken into account. Furthermore, we don’t know what the difference in machine costs are now, only in the 1970s. I hate this answer.
B) I think this would
strengthen the argument, because if this were true then everything (not just soft drinks) now costs twice as much.
C) The point is not how stringent the regulation is. The point is whether prices should be raised. This answer does nothing for or against that proposition. No way.
D) This answer says, “There’s a difference between soft drinks and telephones.” That’s what we were looking for, so we have to like this answer. If this answer is true, then there is a reason soft drinks are more expensive, relative to phone calls. This shows that the stupid analogy just doesn’t apply.
E) This, like B, would strengthen the argument.
We wanted a weakener, and the only weakener was D. So that’s our answer
_________________