LSAT 130 – Section 4 – Question 08

LSAT 130 - Section 4 - Question 08

September 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:08

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
PT130 S4 Q08
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
0%
153
B
96%
164
C
3%
153
D
1%
152
E
0%
149
130
138
145
 +Easier 146.168 +SubsectionMedium

Factory manager: One reason the automobile parts this factory produces are expensive is that our manufacturing equipment is outdated and inefficient. Our products would be more competitively priced if we were to refurbish the factory completely with new, more efficient equipment. Therefore, since to survive in today’s market we have to make our products more competitively priced, we must completely refurbish the factory in order to survive.

Summarize Argument

The manager concludes that the company must refurbish the factory to survive. She supports this by saying that to survive, they must make their products more competitively priced and refurbishing the factory would make their products more competitively priced.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is both the flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity and confusing one solution with the only possible solution.

The manager treats “refurbish” as necessary for “competitively priced.” But according to her premises, “refurbish” is merely sufficient.

In other words, refurbishing the factory is one way to make products more competitively priced, but it may not be the only way. By concluding that the factory must be refurbished, the manager overlooks the possibility that there might be other solutions.

A
fails to recognize that the price of a particular commodity can change over time

The manager doesn't mention that prices can change over time, but this doesn’t describe a flaw in her argument. Her argument addresses the price of her factory’s automobile parts compared to the price of other factories’ parts. Whether prices change over time is irrelevant.

B
shifts without justification from treating something as one way of achieving a goal to treating it as the only way of achieving that goal

The manager shifts from treating refurbishing the factory as one way of making products more competitively priced to treating it as the only way. In her premises “refurbishing” is a sufficient solution, while in her conclusion it’s a necessary solution.

C
argues that one thing is the cause of another when the evidence given indicates that the second thing may in fact be the cause of the first

The manager doesn’t make this mistake. Instead, she argues that one thing is necessary for another when her evidence indicates that it is in fact only sufficient.

D
recommends a solution to a problem without first considering any possible causes of that problem

The manager’s argument is actually flawed because it recommends— and even requires— a solution to a problem without first considering other possible solutions to that problem.

E
fails to make a definite recommendation and instead merely suggests that some possible course of action might be effective

The manager does make a definite recommendation: refurbishing the factory. She also establishes that refurbishing the factory would be effective at making products more competitively priced.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 130 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply