Logical Reasoning

PT1 · S4 · Q23 Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants are sought after by management because they help executives make better decisions.

Mr. Blatt's Position

Expert consultants are sought after because they help executives make better decisions; that's why they're worth their substantial fees.

Ms. Fring's Position

Consultants are hired to enable executives to avoid responsibility. The more expensive the consultant, the more they can be blamed when things go wrong.

Evaluate

The two views diverge on what executives are buying when they hire consultants. On Blatt's view, executives buy decision quality, so they want effective consultants regardless of cost. On Fring's view, executives buy a high-priced scapegoat — so the price matters as much or more than the advice. The strongest evidence for Fring would be a finding that executives respond to consultant price in ways that don't track with decision quality — particularly, that lowering price makes consultants less attractive.

Goal

Find an answer where executives stop hiring consultants when fees go down — even though cheaper good advice should still be valuable on Blatt's view.

23.

Which one of the following, if it occurred, would be the strongest evidence favoring Ms. Fring’s position over Mr. Blatt’s position?

A company that is trying
No Impact
A single company hiring an expensive expert is consistent with both views — Blatt would say they're paying for good analysis; Fring would say they're paying for someone to blame. This anecdote doesn't favor either side.
9% picked this
Two competing companies faced with
No Impact
Two competitors arriving at different solutions, one with and one without a consultant, doesn't tell us anything about why the consultant was hired. Both views are compatible with this outcome — Blatt says the consultant brought specialized insight that led to a different solution; Fring says the consultant was hired for cover, and the solution is incidental.
5% picked this
Correct
A successful firm of expert
Why this is right
This is the kind of outcome that's hard to explain on Blatt's theory but easy on Fring's. On Blatt's view, lower fees should make good consulting more attractive — same value, cheaper. So volume should rise (or at least not drop). On Fring's view, the high fee was a key feature, not a bug — it made the consultant a credible scapegoat. Cheaper consultants are worse scapegoats, so demand falls when prices drop. The observed drop in volume after the fee cut fits Fring, not Blatt.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
An expert consultant builds up
Opposite (if anything)
A consultant whose fee is tied to the savings they generate is a results-based pricing model — and clients who pay this way are paying for results. That's closer to Blatt's "you pay for value" view than Fring's "you pay for blame insurance." If anything, this favors Blatt.
14% picked this
A company follows a consultant’s
No Impact
A company opening two stores on a consultant's advice and the stores being only marginally profitable doesn't favor either view. Both Blatt and Fring can absorb this — Blatt says even good advice doesn't guarantee perfect outcomes; Fring says the consultant gave the executives someone to blame for the modest results. Either reading works.
12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free