Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q13 Carl’s Coffee Emporium stocks only

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

Start practicing free

Carl’s Coffee Emporium stocks only two decaffeinated coffees: French Roast and Mocha Java.

Conclusion (so)

If Y gets all his coffee from C, then last night's was MJ.

Evidence

C has only two decaf coffees: FR and MJ.

Y only serves decaf, and what he served last night definitely wasn't FR.

Evaluate

This is a valid argument. It arrives at its conclusion by restricting us to only 2 options (FR and MJ), ruling out one, and concluding the other.

The conclusion is a conditional claim, but technically we would get a similar logical feel if they had just said, as a premise rather than as a conditional trigger, "Y still gets all his coffee from C".

Goal

Let's look for something where the evidence narrows us down to a finite set of options:

Y only serves decaf. C's decaf is only FR or MJ. So if Y still gets all his coffee from C's, then Y only has FR or MJ.

Then look for a premise to rule out all but one of those options, and a conclusion to pick the remaining option.

Turning this into algebra could be a headache that isn't worth it. There are definitely repeating symbols and conditional indicator words, but there is so much here, that it might be tougher to grapple with then simply looking for the reasoning pattern of,

Here's what the (ill-advised) five-variable algebra might look like:

P1: X only has two types of A's: F and M. P2: Y only uses A. P3: The B that Y used couldn't have been F. C: If Y only uses A from X, then the B that Y used was M.

13.

The argument above is most similar in its logical structure to which one of the following?

  1. Samuel wants to take three

    Bad Evidence Match

    Does the evidence convince us we only have a finite set of options and does it rule out all but one option as ineligible? No. It mentions two options (a sedan and a convertible) but it doesn't say those are the only vehicles that the mother owns. That's already a dealbreaker. It also doesn't rule out one of those two options as ineligible.

    11% picked this

  2. If Anna wants to walk

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is already suspect because it's not a conditional (like the original was), which would make us bail from it without reading it on a first pass. But what really seals its fate is the fact that it presents two options (park vs. overpass) and rules them both out!

    2% picked this

  3. Rose can either take a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The argument presents two options (2 week in July vs. 3 week in Oct) and rules them both out. The planned to take a 3 week hike, but that trail is closed in October, so both of the two options are ineligible.

    8% picked this

  4. Correct

    Werdix, Inc., has offered Arno

    Why this is right

    This limits us to two options (sales job vs. research job), rules out one of them as ineligible (never take sales if something else is being offered), and concludes the remaining choice (research job). And it preserves the conditional conclusion from the original argument. The condition "if he's going to accept one of these jobs" limits us to those two options, the same way "if Y gets all his coffee from C" limited us to the two options of French Roast and Mocha Java.

    Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    78% picked this

  5. If Teresa does not fire

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument does present two options (fire assistant vs. not fire assistant). Does it rule one out as ineligible and conclude the other one? No. It argues that with either option you will get result X, so result X is unavoidable, assuming we're restricted to those two options. The original argument was saying P1: it's gotta be X or Y. P2: it can't be X. C: so it must be Y. This argument is saying P1: it's gotta be X or Y. P2: either way you slice it, Z happens. C: so Z will happen.

    1% 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