LSAT 1 – Section 4 – Question 23
LSAT 1 - Section 4 - Question 23
June 1991You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:31
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT1 S4 Q23 |
+LR
| Strengthen +Streng Weaken +Weak | A
11%
154
B
5%
150
C
56%
163
D
14%
155
E
14%
155
|
145 157 168 |
+Harder | 144.766 +SubsectionEasier |
This is both a strengthening and a weakening question, as we are tasked with strengthening one position and weakening another in one fell swoop: Which one of the following, if it occurred, would be the strongest evidence favoring Ms. Fring’s position over Mr. Blatt’s position?
Our stimulus is a dialogue between a Mr. Blatt and Ms. Fring. Blatt argues that expert consultants are worth their expensive fees because they help executives make better decisions. Fring is having none of this, and instead argues that consultants are hired to help executives escape responsibility, and are only high paid so that more blame can be laid on them when things go wrong. We want an answer choice that will weaken Blatt’s high demand hypothesis while supporting Fring’s fall-guy hypothesis. Let’s take a look at our options:
Answer Choice (A) There is nothing to suggest they are hiring him to take the blame if something goes wrong.
Answer Choice (B) This gives us practically no real information.
Correct Answer Choice (C) Fring’s hypothesis suggests that consultants are hired because of their expensive fees, while Blatt’s suggests it is simply a function of supply/demand. A consultant company lowering fees and losing business suggests they were being hired because of their fees, while also being a completely confusing result if the consultants were being hired for their skills; surely more people would hire them for those skills if they were cheaper! This supports Fring’s belief that it’s their fees which consultants are hired for, and is inconsistent with Blatt’s explanation.
Answer Choice (D) This suggests the consultant is being hired for his skills, not his price.
Answer Choice (E) What this answer is really missing is any information about whether the blame was laid on the consultant; but regardless marginally profitable is still profitable!
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 1 Explanations
Section 1 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 2 - Logic Games
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.