LSAT 59 – Section 2 – Question 26

LSAT 59 - Section 2 - Question 26

December 2009

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

Target time: 1:21

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
PT59 S2 Q26
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
A
15%
163
B
63%
166
C
8%
160
D
7%
159
E
7%
159
150
160
170
 +Hardest 147.936 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

An additional note to (B).

So what we see here is quite common with correct SA answer choices. Given that the bar for correct answer in SA is sufficient, the LSAT writers have room to maneuver. They can give us something that's sufficient for the SA. In other words, they can give us a subset of what we anticipate. Allow me to illustrate.

Let's say that "all mammals are lovely therefore, Skittles is lovely." That's a crap argument but nevermind that. What's the missing SA? Simple... right... ?

Right?

Skittles is a mammal. That's what we need.

We scan the answers and don't see any answer that says Skittles is a mammal. Okay.

But (B) says Skittles is a cat. Well, don't we know that cats --> mammals? (You should.)

So choose (B) because it's a subset of what we need. In other words, (B) is sufficient for our anticipated SA answer choice. In other words, cats sufficient mammal. Cats are subsets of mammals. Subsets are sufficient for supersets.

See, one fairly common way to hide a SA answer choice is to give us an answer choice that's sufficient for the SA answer choice.

We anticipated looking for "buyers CANNOT compare prices charged for the item to see what the item is worth." (B) gave us "cannot determine worth". (B) implies what we anticipated. If it's true that we cannot determine worth, then of course it's true that we cannot compare prices to determine worth. That's like say that you cannot get to Canada implies that you cannot drive to Canada.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 59 Explanations

Section 1 - Logic Games

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply