Re: Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastv
[#permalink]
09 Apr 2023, 23:21
To find the right answer to evaluate questions, we need to find the conclusion first. It's because we can only strengthen or weaken the conclusion. So, the apt answer choice will have to do both - either strengthen or weaken ONLY the conclusion.
Here,
P1 - Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its surrounding suburbs.
P2 - Seafood stores buy fish from the same wholesalers and at the same prices, and other business expenses have also been about the same.
P3 - But new tax breaks will substantially lower the cost of doing business within the city.
C - Therefore, in the future, profit margins will be higher at seafood stores within the city than at suburban seafood stores.
P1 and P2 are in the simple present. So, they are facts that can't be challenged. ( A good trick to differentiate between facts and claims) P3 is a prediction about the future. However, it is bound to happen according to the author. It is on the basis of which he makes the conclusion. So, it's the premise too. Lastly, we come to the most important sentence - the conclusion. The word therefore clearly highlights its conclusion.
Now, basis the conclusion we can say that the author is saying there will be higher margins in the city vs outside. Therefore,
Profit (city) > Profit (suburban)
SP(C) - CP (C) > SP (S) - CP(S)
According to the author, CP(C) will decrease compared to CP(S) because of the tax breaks. So, he concludes that the profit(C) increases. However, we don't know about SP(C) vs SP(S). Will they stay constant? If they do, the author's claim is right. However, if SP(C) also decreases along with CP(C) then there would be no change in profit(C). So, it will weaken the author's claim. The right question will help us ascertain this.
Don't look at the options before building this mental model. Or else they'll only confuse.
A. more fish wholesalers are located within the city than in the surrounding suburbs. - If more wholesalers are in the city than the suburban, we know for sure that their CP will decrease. But will they sell it to other retailers too at a lower price? We don't know. If there are fewer wholesalers in the city, then their CP won't decrease. Either way doesn't help us to determine anything about SP(C) vs SP(S). WRONG
B. any people who currently own seafood stores in the suburbs surrounding Eastville will relocate their businesses nearer to the city. - Again, if they relocate their CP will dec. If they don't relocate, their CP will stay the same. But what about their SP? No idea. WRONG.
C. the wholesale price of fish is likely to fall in the future. - If it falls, again CP will decrease for all. If it doesn't fall again CP will stay the same. No mention of SP. WRONG.
D. fish has always cost about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its surrounding suburbs. - Yes, finally someone is talking about the SP. If they are saying that it has cost the same always everywhere, it happened in the past. Just because something has happened in the past, we can't conclude it will happen in the future too. If it hasn't cost the same, again we can't say for certain that SP will decrease or increase in the future. It might inc or dec. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn about the profit margin. So, WRONG
E. seafood stores within the city will in the future set prices that are lower than those at suburban seafood stores. - This is talking about SP too. Nice. If SP(C) < SP(S), then we know from above that it will result in P(C) < P(S) or the same profit. This weakens the author's claim. If it isn't lower then SP(C)>=SP(S). In both cases profit margin will increase. So, it strengthens the author's claim. Hence, CORRECT.
I hope this clears all doubts.
Regards