• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

LSAT Hacks

The Explanations That Should Have Come With The LSAT

  • Start Here
    • About
  • LSAT Explanations
  • LSAT Courses
  • Tutoring
    • Tutoring
    • Mastery seminars
    • Course
    • Books
  • Blog
  • Login
LSAT Explanations » LSAT Preptest 36 » Logical Reasoning 2 » Question 22

LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning II, Q22, LSATHacks

LSAT 36 Explanations

LR Question 22 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: The retail price of decaffeinated coffee is…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption 

CONCLUSION: Decaf can’t possibly cost more because it’s more expensive to produce. 

REASONING: The decaffeination process is not very expensive. 

ANALYSIS: The argument sounds very good. If decaf coffee doesn’t cost more to process, then how could it possibly cost more to produce?

Well, there could be other costs apart from processing. The negation of the correct answer tells us that the beans could cost more to buy. That would explain the higher price.

___________

  1. Actually, the argument admits that decaf costs more to process. It just doesn’t cost much more. 
  2. It doesn’t matter what causes differences in product prices as long as the cause isn’t production costs in the particular case of decaf coffee. 
  3. Even if there was a lot of competition, the argument’s point that processing doesn’t cost much is still true. 
  4. If retail sellers did expect that consumers would pay more for decaf then that could explain why the price is higher. The assumption in this answer choice definitely isn’t necessary.
  5. CORRECT. If decaf beans cost a lot more then that could account for the price difference, even though the processing cost is the same. 

Previous Question
Table Of Contents
Next Question




Free Logical Reasoning lesson

Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.

Check out LSATHacks All Access

It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Saul says

    June 4, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    I liked A because I thought, well even if processing decaf isn’t so expensive, guess what – maybe it’s 5 cents versus 1 cent for regular, and that could add up! And therefore the price difference could in fact be accounted for by the cost of providing the coffee to the consumer..

    Reply
    • TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says

      June 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm

      The negation of (A) is: “Processing regular coffee does not cost more (that is, the cost is lesser than or equal to) than processing decaffeinated coffee”.
      The most minimal negation is to say that the costs are equal. We now have to ask if plugging the negation back into the argument makes the argument fall apart, and the answer is no. The issue is that the argument admits that the cost of “providing” a cup of decaf is greater than the cost of providing a cup of regular coffee. So, even if the processing costs of regular coffee were lesser than or equal to the processing costs of decaf coffee, the argument concedes that the overall cost of “providing” is greater, meaning that there are other costs involved here beyond processing.

      Reply
  2. Saul says

    June 4, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    I didn’t like the language in this conclusion. What does it mean, “providing decaffeinated coffee to the consumer”? Does that mean, the cost for me, as a restaurant owner, to brew you a cup of decaf coffee? Does it mean, every possible cost associated with getting the coffee from farm to mug, including growing the beans, importing, processing, etc?

    Reply
    • TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says

      June 5, 2017 at 11:59 am

      Well, those two questions are basically asking the same thing — the cost of brewing a cup of coffee for the consumer must include all costs associated with getting that coffee to the consumer. To even get to the step of brewing the coffee, the beans need to be purchased from a retailer, who in turn purchases it from farmers, etc. In this sense, the language is not that confusing — we can make the common sense assumption that the costs of “providing” a cup of coffee include all the relevant costs that you mentioned.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox


New! LSATHacks All Access: Get every course on LSATHacks + members only explanations

LSATHacks Pro

Get a higher score with LSATHacks

LSAT Course, LSAT Mastery seminars, and 3,000 extra explanations. All for only $760 $349, satisfaction guaranteed. Sign up here: https://lsathacks.com/all-access/

Testimonials

Your emails are tremendously helpful. - Matt

Thanks for the tips! They were very helpful, and even make you feel like you studied a bit. Great insight and would love more! - Haj

Dear Graeme: MUCH MORE PLEASE!! Your explanations are very clear, and you give equal importance to why answers are WRONG, as well as why THE ANSWER is right!! Very well done. Thank you for all your efforts - Tom

These have been awesome. More please!!! - Caillie

The course was immensely helpful and has eased my nerves a lot. - Lovlean

© Copyright 2023 LSAT Hacks. All Rights Reserved. | FAQ/Legal

Disclaimer: Use of this site requires official LSAT preptests; the explanations are of no use without the preptests. If you do not have the accompanying preptests, you can find them here: LSAT preptests
LSAT is copyright of LSAC. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.
×
Item Added to your Cart!
There are no products
Continue Shopping