top of page

LSAT Preptest 152, Section 2, Question 7

"Economist: ChesChem, a chemical manufacturer…"

Explanation

The economist's argument is based on a cost-benefit analysis regarding the location of ChesChem's manufacturing operations. The argument assumes that there is a threshold at which the cost of natural gas in Chester justifies moving to Tilsen, and that ChesChem's decision to move is sensitive to any increase in natural gas costs in Chester.

A. This statement does not directly support the claim that ChesChem will move if costs increase; it speaks to overall expenses, not the decision to move based on changes in natural gas prices. 


B. (Correct Response) The argument assumes that the relative cost difference between Chester and Tilsen will motivate the move. If the price in Tilsen were to increase as well, it could negate the argument's reasoning, as the cost advantage in Tilsen might no longer exist. 


C. This option introduces profitability, which is not part of the economist's claim. The argument is about the cost of natural gas and the decision to move, not the overall profitability of the company. 


D. The argument does not suggest that the benefit of lower energy costs is the only one; it simply focuses on this particular cost as the factor for moving. 


E. This choice incorrectly suggests that ChesChem will move only if prices increase, while the argument actually states that any increase in Chester triggers the move.

The economist's argument is most strongly supported by the assumption that the natural gas prices in Tilsen will not increase, which is necessary to maintain the cost benefit of moving that the argument relies on.

bottom of page