LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 22

December 2009

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

Target time: 1:04

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
PT131 S2 Q22	+LR	Strengthen +Streng Causal Reasoning +CausR Sampling +Smpl	A 51% 167 B 5% 160 C 41% 161 D 2% 157 E 1% 157	154 164 174	+Hardest	147.936 +SubsectionMedium

A recent study confirms that nutritious breakfasts make workers more productive. For one month, workers at Plant A received free nutritious breakfasts every day before work, while workers in Plant B did not. The productivity of Plant A’s workers increased, while that of Plant B’s workers did not.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that nutritious breakfasts makes workers more productive. This is based on a study in which workers at one plant received free nutritious breakfasts every day before work, and workers at another plant did not get free nutritious breakfasts every day before work. After one month, the productivity of the first plant’s workers increased, while that of the second plant’s workers did not.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that nutritious breakfasts caused the increased productivity in th first plant. The author also assumes that workers in the second plant did not eat nutritious breakfasts. (This overlooks the possibility that, even though they didn’t get free nutritious breakfasts, they still could have eaten breakfasts on their own.)

Few workers in Plant B consumed nutritious breakfasts during the month of the study.

This strengthens by helping to establish that the second plants’s workers generally did not eat nutritious breakfasts during the study. If this were not true, then both groups would have had nutritious breakfasts and there would have been no control group.

Workers in the study from Plant A and Plant B started work at the same time of day.

It’s not clear that having the same start time strengthens the argument, becaue having different start times would not necessarily weaken the argument.

During the month before the study, workers at Plant A and Plant B were equally productive.

The study observed that Plant A’s productivity increased, and Plant B’s productivity didn’t increase. Starting productivity point doesn’t matter, because we’re only comparing increase vs. no increase. We’re not comparing one’s plant’s productivity to another’s.

Workers from Plant A took fewer vacation days per capita during the month than did workers from Plant B.

Plant A’s productivity increased, while Plant B’s did not. We’re not comparing one plant’s productivity to the other’s; we’re just comparing the presence of an increase to the lack of an increase. So, comparative vacation days don’t affect the argument.

Workers in Plant B were more productive during the month of the study than were workers from Plant A.

The study observed that Plant A’s productivity increased, and Plant B’s productivity didn’t increase. We’re not comparing one plant’s productivity to another’s.

LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 22

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 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel