LSAT 133 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 133 - Section 1 - Question 13

June 2011

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

Target time: 0:58

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
PT133 S1 Q13
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
A
2%
155
B
7%
154
C
1%
155
D
90%
164
E
0%
158
137
144
152
 +Medium 146.357 +SubsectionMedium

A large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices. The penalty imposed on the company will probably have little if any effect on its behavior. Still, the trial was worthwhile, since it provided useful information about the company’s practices. After all, this information has emboldened the company’s direct competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior toward customers and competitors.

Summarize Argument
The trial of a large company was valuable despite the likely ineffectiveness of the penalty. The trial was valuable because it revealed information about the company’s practices. This new information empowered the company’s competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to moderate its unfair behavior.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the contention that the trial was worthwhile because it revealed information about the company, which led to positive outcomes.

A
Even if the company had not been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior.
This is not an argument made in the stimulus. The author does not speculate on what would have happened had the company not been convicted. While the author might agree with this claim, it is not part of the argument presented and therefore cannot be the main conclusion.
B
The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior.
This premise supports the sub-conclusion that the trial “provided useful information.” It specifies that the trial exposed the company’s practices and explains the value of this revelation: it empowered competitors, alerted rivals, and forced the company to change its behavior.
C
The penalty imposed on the company will likely have little or no effect on its behavior.
This is part of the stimulus’s context. This sentence explains why some may consider the trial a waste of time—because its penalty is unlikely to affect the company’s behavior—and sets the stage for the author to explain why the trial was valuable despite the ineffective penalty.
D
The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices was worthwhile.
This answer restates the main conclusion (“the trial was worthwhile”) with context that describes the trial (“the company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices”). The subsequent claims support this conclusion by explaining why the trial was valuable.
E
The penalty imposed on the company in the trial should have been larger.
This is not an argument made in the stimulus. The author argues that the penalty was inadequate to change the company’s behavior but does not claim the penalty should have been larger. While the author might agree, it is not part of the argument and cannot be the main conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply