Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 574 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
PT82.S4.Q21 - Restraurant critic: Most people agree that the food
TheoryandPractice
Alum Member
I am thoroughly confused by this question.
The correct answer just explains why TI remains ordinary. But why does that even need an explanation?
I thought the discrepancy is why TI is more popular than M despite TI being ordinary. Hence, wouldn’t the correct answer have to strengthen the mitigating reason for why TI is more popular?
The premise only talks about how TI’s location attracks customers, but it doesn’t address if that makes TI more popular than M. So I was looking for an answer that would suggest that the location is a significant factor in determining TI’s popularity, significant enough to render its ordinary food less relevant.
Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-82-section-4-question-21/