LSAT 129 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 129 - Section 3 - Question 05

June 2009

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:43

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
PT129 S3 Q05
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
95%
165
B
0%
156
C
2%
156
D
1%
154
E
2%
155
130
138
147
 +Easier 146.07 +SubsectionMedium

Hernandez: I recommend that staff cars be replaced every four years instead of every three years. Three-year-old cars are still in good condition and this would result in big savings.

Green: I disagree. Some of our salespeople with big territories wear out their cars in three years.

Hernandez: I meant three-year-old cars subjected to normal use.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Hernandez concludes that staff cars should be replaced every four years instead of every three years. Why? Replacement every four years would save money, as three-year-old cars are still in good condition. Hernandez clarifies that this claim only applies to the subset of staff cars which are subject to normal use, in response to Green’s comment that some staff cars used in large areas are not still in good condition after three years.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Hernandez responds to Green by clarifying the set to which the premise that three-year-old cars are in good condition applies. By clarifying that it’s specifically the subset of three-year-old cars that have been subject to normal use which are still in good condition, Hernandez neutralizes Green’s objection.

A
by explicitly qualifying a premise used earlier
Hernandez explicitly qualifies the earlier premise that “three-year-old cars are still in good condition” to specify that the claim applies to the subset of cars which are used normally, rather than the entire set of three-year-old staff cars.
B
by criticizing salespeople who wear out their cars in three years
Hernandez does not criticize salespeople anywhere in the argument.
C
by disputing the accuracy of Green’s evidence
Hernandez does not dispute the accuracy of Green’s evidence, but claims that it is already compatible with the intentions of Hernandez’s original claims.
D
by changing the subject to the size of sales territories
Hernandez doesn’t talk about the size of sales territories, and stays focused on the original subject of staff cars.
E
by indicating that Green used a phrase ambiguously
Hernandez does not claim that Green’s language is ambiguous at any point, instead responding to the substance of Green’s objection.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 129 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply