Q5 - Regrigiator

[VincentAlessendri]

The explanation at the back of the book doesn't make any sense to me. The fact that it is a lvl 1 question confounds me.

Can someone explain this question better?

A) Building and refitting a refrigerator with the new technology is an one time cost. Energy costs you pay over each time period.

The argument is that the energy cost savings over the long term will pay for the refrigerator. Why does building and refitting costs matter since they are fixed, one time, costs that will eventually be paid back by energy savings?

D) I answered D. How they try to explain D away seems to me to be really silly. The argument doesn't really address the effectiveness of the old refrigerator. All it says is that the new ones don't need to work in the cold. How well the old ones work and if they work at all are not said.

Say if the old refrigerator (although it requires cold) works better than the new refrigerator. Well then having the old refrigerator might save you money because you will need fewer of those refrigerators to be as effective.

Am I doing something wrong when I am looking at this question?

[sumukh09]

D) is incorrect because the effectiveness of the current technology in preventing food spoilage need not be taken into account because we do not know how or why the current technology affects food spoilage in relation to costs. The argument is about the cost of the new technology vs the old technology - answer choice A) addresses this by introducing a new element, specifically the expense associated with installing the new technology, into the equation.

Perhaps the installation of this new technology costs an amount significant enough to reconsider the cost-effectiveness of the new technology.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of food spoilage is not pertinent to the argument core; its relevance is only in regards to how it impacts costs and we cannot assume that its current effectiveness would play a role in reducing costs in comparison to the new technology. Maybe it IS more effective in preventing food spoilage, but that does not necessarily have to imply that it would cost less in the long run.

This is just my take on the question so take it with a grain of salt. But I hope it helps somewhat.

[brian.diliberto]

delete

[maryadkins]

This argument is entirely about expense:

New fridge has less energy costs --> New fridge will be less expensive in the long run

This is actually a pretty classic LSAT flaw, so this is a good opportunity to memorize it and look out for it in the future! Just because something is cheaper in one way doesn't mean it's cheaper in all the ways. What if the new fridges cost $4 million to install? And a regular fridge costs $200? No matter how much more energy the regular fridge consumes over time, it likely won't even come close to how much the new fridge cost solely to install!

(A) says this. It is also the only answer choice that addresses expense explicitly. The flaw is that the argument "does not address the expense" of building the new fridge (in comparison to the old fridge). If it did, it would be a better argument.

(D) isn't about cost at all. It is about effectiveness. There is a big leap to get from effectiveness to expense. You have to make all kinds of assumptions that you don't actually have to make in (A). In fact, we don't actually care how effective the new fridge is. We were told it costs less in terms of energy. We only want to know what additional costs there might be, and the obvious one is installation (I'll say it again: common LSAT flaw! Memorize.)

(B) (C) and (E) are out of scope for this same reason.

[MeenaV936]

I was confused because it says "long-term" costs whereas installation is a one-time cost. Given this, why is A the best answer, when B is a better choice because consumer discomfort could impact prices long-term since if people are discomfited they won't buy the product, thereby raising prices?