The argument tells us that cats eat fewer ounces per day of canned food versus dry food, but it costs more per day to feed a cat canned food. Which of the following can be properly inferred?
We can conclude from these facts that canned food must cost more per ounce (E), otherwise it would be mathematically impossible that the cost of canned food per day is higher, but the amount of ounces consumed is lower. The reason (D) is incorrect is because it leaves open a possibility that the cost is equal - "it costs no less to feed a cat that eats fewer ounces" implies that it could cost the same or more, whereas the argument clearly tells us that the cost of canned food per day is more than dry food.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
kristinsmith04December 15, 2019
Hi There! I avoided E because I thought it may not be true that the cat food costs more per ounce if economies of scale kick in (ie. the first ounce is really expensive, but once you package a ton of ounces into a can, it is cheaper). There could be other reasons the wet food is more expensive, like the aluminum can it comes in. Why is this analysis wrong? I do agree its better than all the others and I should have picked it though! Thanks
shunheDecember 22, 2019
Hi @kristinsmith04,
We want to be careful about bringing in too much outside information into the LSAT, such as considerations of economies of scale when thinking about answer choice E. In general, stick to information in the stimulus. Let me know if you have any further questions.
