LSAT 129 – Section 3 – Question 05
LSAT 129 - Section 3 - Question 05
June 2009You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
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 |
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
- 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
Section 2 - 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
- Question 26
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.