PrepTest 111
[lcid:3542] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
President of the Regional
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Argument or Facts
Argument
Valid or Flawed
Flawed
Question Type
Errors in Reasoning Questions
Stimulus Summary
Background - No new businesses have formed or moved into the region for the past decade
Planning Board: Our recent estimate says businesses are leaving at a rate of 4/week
President: There were a max of 1,000 businesses in the area, so at that rate, they’d have all disappeared a while ago, so the Planning Board is overestimating
Answer Anticipation
This argument can be a difficult one to find an error with. After all, if no new businesses formed or moved into the area over the past decade, and 4/week were leaving, that would amount to about 2,000 businesses having left. That’s more than the 1,000 that the President established existed - max - in the region!
However, there is a feature here that we can focus on in order to help us find the flaw, and it’s one that is frequently relevant on the LSAT - the timeline. The new-business formation drought that the President relies on started ten years ago. However, the Planning Board’s estimate of the rate that businesses are leaving the area is “recent.”
The President’s calculations seem to be based off of that rate existing throughout that entire period - after all, if that rate applies only recently (let’s call it two years), then fewer than 1,000 businesses would have left. So the President is applying numbers that are specifically noted as being “recent” to a period stretching over a decade, making her rebuttal flawed. Let’s find an answer highlighting this timeline issue.
Answer choices
-
Afocuses on what is Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
The President’s first sentence says that no new businesses have moved or started up in the region over the past decade, so she does consider what is coming into the system - nothing. -
Bconfuses a claim about Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
The President establishes both the absolute size of the system (“never more than about one thousand businesses”) and the rate of change - she doesn’t confuse them. -
Cargues against a position Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
The President brings up the rate of businesses leaving an area to prove her point - she doesn’t attack the motives of the Planning Board. -
Dtreats a claim about Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
The President takes the “recent estimate” and applies it over the past ten years - the timeline she sets over which no new businesses have moved to or entered the area. If 4/week were leaving over that timeline, then her argument holds. If the 4/week is a recent acceleration, then it might not. Since this answer highlights the flaw in the President’s argument, it’s the correct answer. -
Eattacks what was offered Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
The President’s own numbers are estimates/imprecise - “no never more than” and “long ago” aren’t exactly specific in nature! So she’s not criticizing the Planning Board’s numbers as being imprecise.