1990 editorial: Local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever

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