LSAT 152 – Section 1 – Question 17

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 17

November 2018

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

Target time: 1:14

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
PT152 S1 Q17
+LR
Point at issue: agree +Agree
A
33%
161
B
1%
150
C
22%
156
D
5%
157
E
39%
165
155
166
177
 +Hardest 148.23 +SubsectionMedium

Xavier: The new fast-food place on 10th Street is out of business already. I’m not surprised. It had no indoor seating, and few people want to sit outside and breathe exhaust fumes while they eat.

Miranda: The bank should have realized that with all the fast-food places on 10th Street, one lacking indoor seating was likely to fail. So it was irresponsible of them to lend the money for it.

Speaker 1 Summary
Xavier thinks it’s unsurprising that the new fast-food place is kaput. How did he see this coming? Well, there was no indoor seating, and sitting outside breathing exhaust isn’t a popular option.

Speaker 2 Summary
Miranda thinks that it was irresponsible for the bank to lend start-up capital for this new restaurant. Why? Because the bank should also have foreseen the restaurant’s failure, by realizing that the lack of indoor seating was a serious problem.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. Xavier and Miranda agree the failure of this fast-food restaurant was unsurprising; it was predictable, given the lack of indoor seating, that the new place would likely fail.

A
few people want to sit outside while they eat
Xavier agrees, but Miranda does not express an opinion. She doesn’t say anything about sitting outside being unpopular in general, just that all the other options in the area have indoor seating and the new restaurant’s lack was a mistake.
B
banks should not finance restaurants lacking indoor seating
Neither speaker expresses this broad opinion. Xavier never mentions banks, much less what they should or shouldn’t do. Miranda does talk about banks, but doesn’t go as far as saying that banks shouldn’t finance any restaurant without indoor seating, just this one restaurant.
C
if the new fast-food place had indoor seating, it probably would have been successful
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this. Neither Xavier nor Miranda mentions the quality of the food or really anything about the restaurant other than its lack of indoor seating. Maybe there were other reasons it would have failed—we don’t know.
D
a fast-food place on 10th Street is likely to fail if it has any outdoor seating
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. For one, Miranda never discusses outdoor seating as a poor choice. She just believes it was unwise to provide no indoor seating. Maybe a restaurant with both options would have been fine.
E
the new fast-food place on 10th Street was a risky venture
Xavier and Miranda both agree with this. Xavier says that the restaurant’s failure was unsurprising, and Miranda says that the bank should have seen that the restaurant was likely to fail. When failure is likely, that’s equivalent to “risky.”

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply