QUESTION TEXT: From time to time there is a…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: There’s no problem with predatory pricing.
REASONING: The threat of competition will keep companies from raising prices, even if their competitors go out of business.
ANALYSIS: On necessary assumption questions, you must ask how the evidence could fail to justify the argument. What is the author assuming?
Here, they’re assuming that competition would work. But if competitors can’t enter the market, then this argument falls apart.
___________
- The argument said the threat of competition is what keeps companies from raising prices. Actual competition is not necessarily required.
Negation: Some successful companies may avoid creating competitors. - “Unlikely” and “Likely” are related to most. Likely = 51%, unlikely = 50% or less. Since you must negate in the slightest way possible, negating unlikely means moving from 50% to 51%, which is never a significant change.
Negation: It is likely that multiple companies will engage in predatory pricing. - Company size wasn’t relevant. The issue is lack of competition. In a small market a company might drive out all competitors even if it isn’t that big.
Negation: At least one company that isn’t large and wealthy can engage in predatory pricing. - Negating this makes the argument stronger! Additional reasons to avoid raising prices mean we don’t need to worry about predatory pricing.
Negation: There is at least one other reason companies avoid raising prices (e.g. Compassion, legal requirements, cost of changing ads, etc.) - CORRECT. The author assumed that prices are the only reason we should worry about predatory pricing. There could be other reasons. Maybe predatory pricing is not fair to competitors.
Negation: Some pricing practices are unacceptable even if they do not result in unreasonable prices.
Recap: The question begins with “From time to time there is a”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. To practice more Necessary Assumption questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Lyndsie says
Maybe the reason I haven’t gotten out of the 150s is because I don’t quite understand why we’re negating all of these to get to the right answer. I got this question right but circled it because it took too long.
I’m thinking if I were better at quickly negating this might help me. But, I’m confused as to why we need to negate the answers in the first place…
FounderGraeme Blake says
For anyone reading this now, this article may help! https://lsathacks.com/lsat-negations/
We negate because it helps us see if an answer is necessary. Both of these help with law school applications, but the negation lets us see which is necessary:
* You have a great essay. Negation: You do not have a great essay
* You apply. Negation: You do not apply
You can get into law school with a bad essay, if everything else is good. Whereas it is not possible to get into law school if you don’t apply. So, the first statement is helpful but not necessary, whereas the 2nd is necessary.
In practice I don’t consciously negate each answer. When I read them I kind of intuitively know what the negation would be. But I list negations in these explanations so you can check if you understand how to negate each answer properly.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
MemberOscar says
Hey,
not quite sure how D makes the argument stronger when negated. Can you help me see this?
FounderGraeme Blake says
The argument claimed that competition will keep companies from raising prices. The negation of B would be: “There are additional reasons beyond competition which will also prevent rising prices”.
So the negation of D adds an extra reason to support the author’s conclusion.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Aaron Frank says
Important to note that properly negating ONLY is the most important part of this question. I stared at “It is not competition…” as the negation instead of “It is not only competition…”
Wish I could find a complete list of quantity indicators and their negations.
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
Yes, that’s correct. The proper negation involves the potential for other reasons that companies might raise their prices.
As for quantity indicators and their negations, one way to practice them is to use the questions by type tool on LSATHacks. Practice negating every answer choice in necessary assumption questions, and see if your negations line up with Graeme’s in his explanations. You can focus on questions that have quantity indicators, but I’d also suggest practicing with a broad spectrum of necessary assumption questions. Here’s the link for LR questions by type: https://lsathacks.com/guide/logical-reasoning/questions-by-type/
Mikael Dubinsky says
On Answer choice E) Why did you change the order of the sentence when you negated it ? IF you were to leave the sentence structure the same, how would you negate it. For instance answer choice E states “Any pricing practice that does not result in unreasonable prices should be acceptable” Since any could signify a sufficient condition, do I negate only the second half of the sentence? Or negate the word “any” to “some” and then negate “does not” to “does”. So in a sense, if I keep the sentence structure the same I am negating two words or just one ?
FounderGraeme Blake says
Because that’s how you negate it :)
Don’t think of it in grammatical terms. Think of it in terms of making the statement not true in one instance. The statement, conditionally, is:
Not unreasonable price –> Acceptable
Negation is: “There is at least one case of a “not unreasonable pricing” that is nevertheless not acceptable”
In other words, the statement is false, it’s possible to have the sufficient without the necessary.
I don’t think drawing is useful for these, but conceptually that’s what you’re doing. Focussing on the grammar distracts from understanding the meaning and making it false. Sometimes you have to change the order of a sentence to express the idea that it can be false.