Q18 - Book pulishers have traditionally published

[alber.lin]

I pick D, though I can see why B is right.
Both choices weaken the argument concluding it seems all publishers' motive.

Can you explain this to me?

[gilad.bendheim]

If (D) were true, and authors were unwilling to publish, then why didn't this manifest earlier in time, when the stimulas says publishers would publish books of intrinsic value (thereby implying that authors were willing to have them published)? If back then publishers managed to find intrinsically valuable books to publish, what changed that now they cannot find them? Choice (D) basically only reinforces the argument, because it says that in fact NOTHING external has changed, and therefore the only thing that has changed is the publisher's own desire to make more money.

Moreover, just because there have always been authors unwilling to publish unless they are guaranteed profit, should not imply that ALL authors are like this, nor should it imply that these authors are the ones who are putting out the intrinsically valuable books. So aside from its role in reinforcing the argument, choice (D) also tells us nothing about the class of author we are looking for: the one who writes intrinsically valuable books. Notice that this is what the correct answer (B) is hitting on - that the intrinsically valuable books are likely harder to find because of a decline in quality of writing in general.

[d.andrew.chen]

Conclusion: "Publishers, more than ever, are more interested in making $ than in publishing books of intrinsic value."

I chose (C), which basically says that books in the past w/ intrinsic value often unexpectedly made $.

I understand why (B) is right, but I chose to attack the conclusion in a different way. I interpreted the conclusion as arguing that publishers care more about $ over intrins. value now than in the past...I think I overrated the time comparison. With that in mind, I thought (C) was relevant because it establishes that publishers in the past cared about $ a lot, too. If their reason for traditionally publishing said books was $ driven, isn't the conclusion weakened-- that publishers care more about $ now than they did in the past?

I understand that (B) is probably the better answer and "most seriously weakens" it...but wanted to ask this question.

[lhermary]

I would also like to know why C is wrong

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great discussion!

If their reason for traditionally publishing said books was $ driven, isn't the conclusion weakened-- that publishers care more about $ now than they did in the past?

Your point is well taken, and I follow your reasoning, but Gilad's point above

If back then publishers managed to find intrinsically valuable books to publish, what changed that now they cannot find them?

as he dealt with answer choice (D) I think still applies to answer choice (C). Why is there a drop in the number of books being published? Answer choice (C) might weaken the conclusion, but it doesn't weaken the argument. The argument is the reasoning involved, which is essentially the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion.

Should the drop in books being published be explained by a change in the greed of the publishers? This is actually a very formulaic argument that the LSAC has designed. It's the explanation of something observed. The explanation constitutes the conclusion and to weaken their explanation we should seek an answer choice that provides an alternative explanation. To strengthen such a argument structure, the correct answer choice will eliminate a completing explanation.

Answer choice (B) provides an alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon (it may not be increased greed that's the reason but rather less available product) and thereby weakens the argument.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) does not undermine the relative comparison in the conclusion of the argument, but gets you to start thinking about just focusing on the conclusion - clever answer choice.
(C) doesn't undermine the argument, since it does not offer an explanation of the decline in published books of intrinsic quality.
(D) focusses on authors and not publishers, and rather than explaining a change would suggest that maybe no change should have occurred.
(E) offers an explanation for why there's a decline in the number of those books that don't make a profit, but seems to suggest the same explanation as was concluded in the argument.

Hope that helps!

[adarsh.murthy]

Dont quite agree..B says quality has been declining and E says profit has been declining. And I think both can can equally cause the publishers to hold back the "charity" work they have been doing! So, I dont see why B should weaken more than E. what do you think? Thanks!

[joseph.m.kirby]

Dont quite agree..B says quality has been declining and E says profit has been declining. And I think both can can equally cause the publishers to hold back the "charity" work they have been doing! So, I dont see why B should weaken more than E. what do you think? Thanks!

What makes (B) a better answer choice than (E) is the word "notable" in (B). In regard to (E), profits may be declining; however, the decline could be by a penny each year.

[gplaya123]

Here is my 2cents:

The argument is this:
So books that are of intrinsic merit were published before even though they make no profit.
Now, fewer of them are sold.
---
Therefore, the publishing company is interested more in making money.

Now, the assumption is this: just because publishing fewer of something that makes no profit, it's because of money?
Can it be something else... like no one writes the books with merit perhaps? Or maybe, the government has recently enforced a policy that prohibits publishing of books with merits?

B directly weakens the argument by giving an alternative cause.

Let's talk about other answer choices:
A) Just because has been always interested in making money does not mean company can't be MORE interested in making money.

D) it requires an additional assumption.
No money guarantee -> author unwilling to publish books with merit.
So... is money guaranteed or not? Since we don't know, this wouldn't weaken the argument.

E) This actually quite strengthen the argument. If profits are declining and the company publishes less book that makes no profit, doesn't it look like as if the company has a strong motivation in making profits?

Let's talk about C for a sec.
I chose this too by the way.
This is my initial reasoning: Ok, so if books with merit could make a huge sales and publishers back in the days were more willing to publish such books, wouldn't the argument be weakened since it means that back in the days, the company was also primarily interested in making money (like winning a lotto)?

But then This answer choice is almost same as A. C shows that perhaps the company always have been or was also interested in making profits. Does that weaken the argument that the company nowadays is MORE interested in making profits?
It's unknown. Thus, it's not C.

[Alvanith]

I read the posts above and I have a thought here...

The conclusion is NOT publishers are more interested in making money. Rather, the conclusion is that publishers now are more interested in money THAN in good books. There is a comparison here.

The core of the argument is:

P1: In the past publishers sometimes published books that were of intrinsic value but unprofitable.

P2: Nowadays they published fewer of these books.

C: publishers now are MORE interested in money THAN in good books

The answer choice (c) says in the past those books were often lucrative.

IMO, if the conclusion is simply publishers are more interested in making money, answer choice (c) might be a weakener since, if (c) were true, the publishers at this time are probably LESS LIKELY to be MORE interested in making money because they are publishing fewer of those lucrative books instead. It becomes harder to infer that they are more interested in money if they are doing something that is contrary to their interest - making money.

However, if the conclusion is that the publishers now are MORE interested in money THAN in the quality of the books, then (c) would not be a weakener.

If (c) were true:

P1: In the past, those guys published lucrative books that were of intrinsic value.

P2: Now, they published fewer of them.

At this point, we cannot say whether the publishers are more interested in money or the quality of books since they just publish fewer books that are both profitable and of intrinsic value. It is hard to guess which one is more interested to them.

Please correct me if I made a mistake. Thanks in advance!

[WaltGrace1983]

I think that we are forgetting the word "unexpectedly" in (C).

Many are discussing that (C) would weaken because it shows that, if these books of intrinsic merit were making money and now they are producing less of them, wouldn't this upset the conclusion that publishers are MORE interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value now? I think that an argument could be made for that.

HOWEVER, (C) doesn't exactly show anything about the publisher's original intentions because it says that these books "unexpectedly" made money. Just because these books made money doesn't mean that the publishers published these books IN ORDER TO make money.

If (C) had said, "In the past, often books of intrinsic value were published to make money" then I think it would be much better.

Fewer intrinsic value books published
-->
This is so BECAUSE publishers are now more interested in making money than in publishing intrinsic value books

(A) This is an absolute statement but doesn't weaken the relative conclusion. Just because authors "have always been" interested in making money doesn't mean they are or aren't more interested now.

(B) Gives an alternative explanation that isn't about making money: there has been a "notable decline" in the quality of books. Thus, THIS might explain why there are less intrinsic value books being published: there are less intrinsic value books!

(D) This doesn't answer to the relative conclusion. If this has ALWAYS been the case, then what explains the reduction in published intrinsic value books NOW?

(E) May even strengthen because it shows one reason WHY it may be true that $ is more important than intrinsic value.

[drothhello]

I chose C also but here's the thing:

What if, for B, instead of "quality", it said:

There has been a notable decline in intrinsic merit of books.

Haha Friend Now it's obvious! Less amount of intrinsic merit produced could mean less amount of intrinsic merit published.

The tricky thing here is you must equate:

quality=intrinsic value.

I do think the two are synonymous, but do the ladies and gentlemen of the jury and your Honor agree?

[ldfdsa]

IMO, C says "In the past , often books of intrinsic value...a sizable profit" does it means now those books still make unexpected money as before? If "yes", then we know that publishers are not more interest in making $ than good books. If "no", then publishers may care more about losing $. BUT, we don't no it is yes or no. So, clearly, this is not a problem we should care about. Because it is in the stimulus and we should always take it as FACT. So C is a fact denier, and thus should be eliminated immediately.