Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT1 S4 Q23 Explanation

Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants

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

TopicsStrengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants are sought after by management because they help executives make better decisions. That is why they fees they charge.

Ms. Fring: Nonsense. Expert consultants are hired in order to enable executives to avoid responsibility. The more the experts cost, the more when things go wrong.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Mr. Blatt

Blatt's view is the flattering one: executives hire consultants because consultants are good at their jobs. Big fees reflect big value.

Ms. Fring

Fring's view is the cynical one: executives hire consultants for cover. If things go wrong, The expensive price tag is the whole point — it makes the scapegoat more credible.

Evaluate

So how do these views differ in observable predictions? On Blatt's view, cheap-but-good consulting should be very attractive — same value at lower cost. On Fring's view, a cheap consultant is a worse scapegoat, so executives wouldn't want them as much.

If we saw consulting fees go down and demand drop, that's weird on Blatt's theory but expected on Fring's.

Goal

Find the answer where lower fees lead to less demand.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
23.

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

Answer choices

  1. No Impact9% picked this

    A company that is trying to decide whether to move its manufacturing plant hires an expensive expert to

    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.

  2. No Impact5% picked this

    Two competing companies faced with very similar problems adopt different solutions, one with the help of

    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.

  3. Correct61% picked this

    A successful firm of expert consultants seeks to increase its volume of business by reducing its fees, but

    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.

  4. Opposite (if anything)14% picked this

    An expert consultant builds up a successful business by charging clients a substantial percentage of the amount an independent assessor judges that

    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.

  5. No Impact12% picked this

    A company follows a consultant’s advice to open two new stores, but both stores are only

    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.

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