Gerrit: While browsing in a record store I noticed that one copy of a

The question asks us to find an answer that STRENGTHEN Saskia's point.

Saskia's main point is Gerrit actually knew the mistake had been made and tried to take advantage of that mistake. It means Gerrit was NOT misled by the mistake, because if he was misled he couldn't take advantage that mistake.

Option E strengthens Saskia's conclusion by saying that retailers are obligated to sell an item at a mismarked price to only customers who were genuinely misled by the price. If the customers knew the mismarked price --OR-- were NOT genuinely misled about the price, the retailer are NOT obligated to sell an item at lower price.

Hence, E is correct answer.

should be E.
this is from LSAT
thanks.

IMO B because the question stem asks to justify Saskia's but not Gerrit.

E seems best : Retailers are morally obligated to sell an item to a customer at a mismarked price only if that customer was genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking

i will provide the explanation once u provide the OA

sakia argues that "mistake had been made, and you were simply trying to take advantage of that mistake."
It implies that gerrit was not misled and was trying to take advantage of the price.
We also know from the argument that the retailer was morally obligated to sell the recording at the lower price to Gerrit. To Strengthen Sakia's point we need an argument which says that "Retailers are morally obliged to sell an item to a customer at a lower/Mis-marked price only if the customer was misled by mis-marking .Since Gerrit was not misled by mis-marking , option E fits the bill.
Hope this helps

Gerrit: While browsing in a record store I noticed that one copy of a recording I wanted had mistakenly been priced at a quarter of the list price. When I finally reached the cashier, I was told that the price had been mis-marked and I would have to pay the full list price. Since I had wasted an hour standing in line, the retailer was morally obligated to sell me the recording at the lower price.

Saskia: I disagree. You knew that a mistake had been made, and you were simply trying to take advantage of that mistake.
Which one of the following principles, if established, would most help to justify Saskia’s position?
(A) The price displayed on an item in a retail store morally constitutes an irrevocable offer to sell the item at that price.
(B) Customers of retail stores are morally entitled to profit from any mistakes that the retailers make in marking prices.
(C) Retailers are morally entitled to update marked prices periodically in order to reflect changes in manufacturers’ suggested prices.
(D) Retailers are morally obligated to meet expectations about prices that they have intentionally encouraged their customers to hold.
(E) Retailers are morally obligated to sell an item to a customer at a mismarked price "only if that customer was genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking."
>>Only (E) matches the reasoning used by S to put her argument.

General Description: This question asks you to find the principle that would most help justify Saskia's position in arguing against Gerrit. To do so, it is important that you understand exactly what Saskia's position is, and how it is supported.

A. Incorrect. This principle would actually help establish Gerrit's position, not Saskia's. If the principle in response (A) were established, it would follow that the retailer was morally obligated to sell Gerrit the recording at the lower, mistaken price, since that was the price actually marked on the recording.

B. Incorrect. This principle would actually help establish Gerrit's position, not Saskia's. If the principle in response (B) were established, it would follow that Gerrit was morally entitled to profit from the retailer's mistake, that is, that he was morally entitled to purchase the recording at the lower, incorrect price.

C. Incorrect. Since the conversation in the passage does not address the question of updating prices in response to changes in manufacturers' suggested prices, this principle cannot help justify Saskia's position.

D. Incorrect. Since the retailer discussed in the passage did not intentionally encourage Gerrit to hold a certain expectation about the price of the recording (Gerrit says the price was "mistakenly" marked), the establishment of this principle cannot help justify Saskia's position.

E. Correct. This principle presents a condition as necessary to create an obligation for a retailer to sell an item at a mismarked price: Only if the customer was "genuinely misled" about the price is such an obligation created. Since Gerrit was not genuinely misled about the price by the mismarking, the principle's necessary condition for such an obligation does not obtain in this case. That is, establishing the principle in response (E) would help justify Saskia's position that there is no such obligation in this case.

Difficulty Level: Easy

Tips and Pitfalls: To justify one side's position, it is not sufficient that a principle undermine the opposing side's position; the correct response must provide positive support for the position in question.
_________________

Hey nightblade354

Sorry to trouble you again bro
Kindly mark the OA as E for this one.

Thanks!

OA updated to reflect the correct answer. No worries, and good job!

-- Mod Nightblade
_________________

help just s:

[g] mistakenly 1/4 of px; cashier charged full px; [prem] waiting long line, [con] cashier mobliged to charge 1/4 of px;

[s] [con] nope; [prem] you need abt mistake and tried taking adv;

[help] g knew abt px, then he should mobliged to tell cashier, not take adv of sit <= strengthen this;

(A) this weakens [s], showg that the cashier is mobliged to sell 1/4 px;
(B) this weakens [s], also seems out-of-scope;
(C) irrelevant;
(D) this weakens [s];

Answer (E): yes, if g didnt knw abt the px dif, then cashier would be mobliged to not charge full px, but g knew and tried to take adv!

We need to strengthen Saskia's position.
Gerrit actually knew that there was a mismarking.

Retailers are morally obligated to sell an item to a customer at a mismarked price only if that customer was genuinely misled about the intended price by the mismarking.
mismarked = lower,
Now Gerrit stood in the line for an hour and so, retailer had to sell it for lower price. As Gerrit knew already about the mismarked price he was indeed taking advantage and E proves it

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________