Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 3 · Question 5

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument/Facts

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Valid/NA

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
H: 3yo cars are in good shape and cars are expensive, so we should replace cars every 4 years instead of 3.

G: But some people wear out their cars in 3 years.

H: Well, not them.

Answer Anticipation:
A rare question where there are three statements made, with Hernandez getting to make a rebuttal to Green's rebuttal. The question stem asks us to describe how Hernandez responds to the objection raised by Green, so it's that final statement we're asked to describe.

Hernandez initially brings up a recommendation based on a couple facts about how their business is run and how much money could be saved with a given change. Green disagrees with this recommendation, however, citing a subset of employees for whom the recommendation wouldn't work. Hernandez then clarifies his initial statements not to apply to that group.

So the correct answer should highlight that Hernandez responds by limiting his initial statement to address Green's objection. And he actually agrees with Green's objection—he acknowledges that the exceptions raised by Green should, in fact, not be governed by his recommendation.

Answer Explanation:
Hernandez qualifies an earlier premise. His initial premise was that three-year-old cars are still in good condition; his final statement qualifies this premise to only apply to three-year-old cars in normal use. This answer highlights that Hernandez accepts that the exception Green raises is a valid one and incorporates it into his argument.

Key Takeaway:
Conditioned/qualified statements are important on the LSAT. While it's frequently the case that it's the conclusion that's qualified ("If Prof. McGonagall is correct, then . . . "), but whenever a statement is limited to applying in only certain circumstances, it's important to note as it plays into the logic of the argument.

Incorrect. Hernandez doesn't criticize those who use their cars more. In calling the use he's referring to "normal" he doesn't mean that those who use it in another means are doing anything wrong, just that it's not standard.

Incorrect. Hernandez, in qualifying his initial premise, agrees with Green that there are exceptions for those who use their cars more—he doesn't dispute her rebuttal.

Incorrect. Green discusses sales territories, not Hernandez, and that subject is relevant to the discussion.

Incorrect. Green brings up a clear exception, not an ambiguous term. If anything, Hernandez admits that he used a term in a way that didn't completely reflect his intended meaning.