LSAT 114 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 03

October 2002

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

Target time: 1:13

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 S2 Q03	+LR +Exp	Most strongly supported +MSS Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 3% 162 B 5% 160 C 82% 166 D 8% 162 E 1% 161	125 141 158	+Easier	145.502 +SubsectionMedium

David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair. Such companies would have little leverage in their negotiations with strikers.

Lin: No, the companies would still have sufficient leverage in negotiations if they hired temporary replacements.

Summary

David claims that disallowing companies to hire permanent replacements for striking employees is unfair because the companies would have little leverage to negotiate with striking employees. Lin disagrees, and claims that companies would have sufficient leverage to negotiate even if they hired temporary replacements.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

David and Lin disagree about the amount of leverage companies would have if those companies were forbidden from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees.

David does not believe that the freedom to hire temporary replacements gives companies any leverage in their negotiations with strikers.

We don’t know whether David believes that hiring temporary replacements would result in a company not having any leverage for negotiations. We only know that, unless the companies were allowed to hired permanent replacements, David believes companies would have little leverage.

David and Lin believe that companies should be allowed as much leverage in negotiations as the striking employees.

We don’t know whether David or Lin believe that companies should have an equal amount of leverage compared to striking employees.

David and Lin disagree over the amount of leverage companies lose in their negotiations with strikers by not being able to hire permanent replacements.

David believes that companies have little leverage for negotiations if companies are forbidden from hiring permanent replacements. Lin believes that companies have sufficient leverage for negotiations even if companies hired temporary replacements.

David and Lin disagree over how much leverage should be accorded companies in their negotiations with strikers.

We don’t know what David or Lin believe to be an appropriate amount of leverage for companies. Rather, their disagreement is about how much leverage companies have based on the types of replacements the companies are allowed to hire.

Lin believes it is unfair to forbid companies from hiring permanent replacements for their striking employees.

We don’t know whether Lin believes forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements is unfair. We only know that she believes companies have sufficient leverage for negotiations even if the companies hire temporary replacements.

LSAT 114 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 03

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel