LSAT 114 – Section 1 – Question 02

LSAT 114 - Section 1 - Question 02

October 2002

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:50

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT114 S1 Q02
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
1%
150
B
1%
153
C
97%
162
D
0%
148
E
0%
150
121
129
138
 +Easiest 144.005 +SubsectionEasier

Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are too fundamental to be mere coincidence, however. The two products not only look alike, but they also work alike. Both are oddly shaped with identically placed control panels with the same types of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.

Summarize Argument
According to the author, the similarities between two products recently released by different companies are no coincidence, despite the companies’ claims to the contrary. The author supports this by explaining that the products look alike as well as working in the same way, as well as by giving some specific examples of suspicious similarities. This evidence is designed to show us that the products are too similar for it to be coincidental, thereby supporting the conclusion that it’s not a coincidence at all.

Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that the similarities between the two products “are too fundamental to be mere coincidence.”

A
the two products have many characteristics in common
This claim is used to support the conclusion that the similarities between the products are not coincidental, so it’s not the main conclusion itself.
B
ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from OCF’s design
The author never says this. We don’t get any detail about why the products are similar (who copied whom, or if the companies merely colluded), just a denial that it’s an accident.
C
the similarities between the two products are not coincidental
This is exactly what the author concludes. The argument as a whole supports the claim that the similarities are not a “mere coincidence” by giving examples of similarities too specific to have occurred accidentally.
D
product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without consulting each other
This is not stated in the argument. The author also argues against the claim that these companies independently developed such similar products, which this statement would support.
E
new products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations of other products
The author doesn’t say this. It’s also not relevant to the argument, because these products never seemed unique to begin with.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply