In order to save money, many consumers redeem coupons that are distributed by retail stores. However, in general, ret...

Victoria on March 30, 2020

Hi @shafieiava,

(E) cannot properly be inferred from the passage because it is too strong.

The passage notes that, in general, retail stores that offer coupons charge more for those products, on average, than retail stores that don't offer coupons.

Answer choice (E) states that prices at retail stores which offer coupons WILL be higher than at retail stores which don't offer coupons for those products. We can't definitively conclude this from the generalization in the passage, making it incorrect.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

shafieiava on April 3, 2020

Yes, that is very helpful - thank you!

Ravi on April 12, 2020

@shafieiava, let us know if you have any other questions!

annasc on April 30, 2020

Can you explain why answer choice A is wrong?

Victoria on August 12, 2020

Hi @annasc,

Happy to help!

This answer choice is a bit tricky; however, it is incorrect because consumers who redeem coupons DO save money by doing so.

They may not save money when you compare the prices they pay to the prices at other stores, but they do save money at the store they shop at. While the coupon-discounted price may still be higher than the upfront price charged at other stores, it is lower than the upfront price charged at the store the consumer shops at.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Mazen on February 8, 2022

Hi--

I eliminated A but for a reasoning that might not be "LSAT appropriate" or could be just false. Would someone please assess my thinking process and tell me if it is false or "not LSAT-oriented"? (By "not-LSAT oriented/appropriate," I mean I got lucky and that the examiners were not testing for- or do not test for the though process which I employed to eliminate A."

Here's my thinking process for eliminating A:
Since this is an inference question, there is no room for doubt; in other words, the answer-choice "must be true" as opposed to "could be true." And when referring to the retail stores in question, the stimulus uses the words "generally," and "on average," which leaves room for uncertainty as to whether ALL retail stores that use coupons do actually engage in shady practices through which they exploit the consumers' faith in their businesses.

Stated differently, because of this vague language, again "generally," and "on average," there could be some retail stores out there that with coupons do discount their prices competitively as compared to others. After all, according to the stimulus, it is only in "general" and "on average" that retail stores increase their prices to make up for the production and distribution of coupons.

"In general" means retail store "can," not they always do. And "on average" means all the stores taken together, which suggests it is probably that ONE store honestly discounting prices competitively, but still being diluted when lumped with HUNDREDS of others who do not, thereby averaging in favor of the HUNDREDS retail stores that pass on the cost of the coupons to the consumers.

Am I correct in my thinking?

Thank You

Mazen on February 8, 2022

Hi--

I eliminated A but for a reasoning that might not be "LSAT appropriate" or could be just false. Would someone please assess my thinking process and tell me if it is false or "not LSAT-oriented"? (By "not-LSAT oriented/appropriate," I mean I got lucky and that the examiners were not testing for- or do not test for the thought process which I employed to eliminate A."

Here's my thinking process for eliminating A:
Since this is an inference question, there is no room for doubt; in other words, the answer-choice "must be true" as opposed to "could be true." And when referring to the retail stores in question, the stimulus uses the words "generally," and "on average," which leaves room for uncertainty as to whether ALL retail stores that use coupons do actually engage in shady practices through which they exploit the consumers' faith in their businesses.

Stated differently, because of this vague language, again "generally," and "on average," there could be some retail stores out there that with coupons do discount their prices competitively as compared to others. After all, according to the stimulus, it is only in "general" and "on average" that retail stores increase their prices to make up for the production and distribution of coupons.

"In general" means retail store "can," not they always do. And "on average" means all the stores taken together, which suggests it is probably that ONE store honestly discounting prices competitively, but still being diluted when lumped with HUNDREDS of others who do not, thereby averaging in favor of the HUNDREDS retail stores that pass on the cost of the coupons to the consumers.

Am I correct in my thinking?

Thank You

Ravi on February 8, 2022

@Mazen, you're correct in your thinking. It's possible to still save money by using coupons, as you would still pay more without the coupon. The thing is that you maybe have done better somewhere else, but you still could have saved money.

Mazen on February 9, 2022

Ravi, you put your finger on the issue I was having: the distinction between whether the consumer could've done better elsewhere or whether she/he could've STILL saved money from the SAME store.
The stimulus concerns the latter, hence Victoria's analysis.

I was caught in comparing a retail store that uses coupons to others that do not, when the stimulus also encompasses a comparison between the retail store and itself when it comes to whether a customer purchases a product with or without a coupon; from that very same store purchasing with coupon as opposed to without does save money, hence the elimination of A.

Thank you Ravi