LSAT 104 – Section 1 – Question 09

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 09

December 1998

You 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 This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT104 S1 Q09	+LR	Must be true +MBT Math +Math	A 93% 169 B 2% 159 C 1% 154 D 1% 156 E 3% 162	131 141 151	+Easier	149.106 +SubsectionMedium

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Sales manager: Last year the total number of meals sold in our company’s restaurants was much higher than it was the year before. Obviously consumers find our meals desirable.

Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants—the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before—demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.

Summary

The company’s restaurants sold more meals last year than the year before. However, all the restaurants that have been open for the last two years sold fewer meals last year than the year before.

Notable Valid Inferences

There must be a restaurant that was open last year but not the year before. This would explain how, in the last two years, all the other restaurants had lower meal sales while the overall number of meals sold increased.

The company opened at least one new restaurant in the last two years.

This must be true. We know meal sales for restaurants open during both years decreased, and we also know that overall meal sales increased. This implies there are restaurants which had an increase in meal sales but which were not open during both years.

The company’s meals are less competitive than they once were.

This could be false. It could be that several new locations opened and customers who used to go to the existing locations began going to the new locations, which explains the decrease in individual restaurants’ sales. The meals may be more competitive than ever.

The quality of the company’s meals has not improved over the past two years.

This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests the quality of the company’s meals has not improved over the past two years.

The prices of the company’s meals have changed over the past two years.

This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests the price of the company’s meals has changed over the past two years.

The market share captured by the company’s restaurants fell last year.

This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests the company’s market share decreased, especially as they sold more meals than the year before.

LSAT 104 – Section 1 – Question 09

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 09

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

J.Y.’s explanation

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 104 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel