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

Question

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.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

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

Nidzo · Answer

(A) Irrelevant. We are comparing phone calls to soft drinks, and not phone calls to soft-drink machines.  Incorrect

(B) The scope of this is too broad, and does not weaken the argument. While it might offer an explanation for the increase in price for soft drinks, it does not give a reason for there not being an increase in call prices.  Incorrect

(C) Does not weaken the argument. If the government was not that stringent on the pricing, then this allows an opportunity for the telephone companies to increase the prices.  Incorrect

(D) This provides reasoning behind the price increase in soft drinks while the price of phone calls stayed the same.  Correct

(E) Does not tackle the argument at hand.  Incorrect

Answer D

100mitra · Answer

Correct Option D

1990 editorial: 
 Premise:  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, 
 Conclusion:  so, phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too.
 Editorial assumption:  cost of Phone call and manufacturing of soft drink is same.

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.
 Wrong:  supports the premise, but doesn’t give any strong reason to weaken the concluded argument.

(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990.
 Flaw:  this gives more information about Inflation and price increase, if inflation would have impacted, it would have impacted all manufacturing segment approximately equally

(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.
 Flaw:  Passage doesn’t discuss about Government regulation, and if does why Government regulation limit to only phone calls, it also makes argument strong, Now government regulation can be removed and bring to reasonable cost as per contemporary market situation

(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.
 Correct:  shows a crucial difference between the two commodities that form the basis for the author's analogy, and therefore weakens the argument

(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990.
 Flaw:  it only gives details about telephone equipment, on other side also raise a doubt, by technological advance was not able to bring same effect to soft drink machine, here comparison demeans the purpose.

sivatx2 · Answer

70s, phone call cost = cost of soft drink
90s, 2 X phone call cost = cost of soft drink
=> phone call cost should be 2 times more.

The fallacy here is that author is not considering whether the two( phone call price, soft drink price) are independent or connected events. If they are not co-related there is no way one can influence the other.

(A) A pay phone typically cost less than a soft-drink machine in the 1970s. 
 Equipment cost is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate

(B) Due to inflation, the prices of most goods more than doubled between the 1970s and 1990. 
 Prices of other products are irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate

(C) Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990. 
 The data is inadequate and may or may not influence the argument. Eliminate

(D) Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment. 
 This can give the reason why the price of the soft drink rose when compared to phone equipment. Also, this is in line with our analysis. Keep

(E) Technological advances made telephone equipment more sophisticated between the 1970s and 1990. 
 This instead of weakening actually strengthen the argument. Eliminate

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards