Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S1 · Q10 Sales manager: Last year

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

Sales manager: Last year the total number of meals sold in our company's restaurants was much higher than it was the year before.

Conclusion (clearly)

The desirability of our meals has decreased.

Evidence (given that)

Looking at individual restaurants, every restaurant that operated last year and two years ago sold a lower number of meals.

Evaluate

Given that ... every restaurant that's been open for at least two years reported selling fewer meals this year than last year,

How could we say that ... the desirability of the meals has not decreased?

We could come up with alternate explanations for why all the restaurants sold fewer meals this year than last year, explanations that don't relate to the meals being less desirable.

- Maybe it's "the Starbucks effect" where the restaurant builds so many locations that they steal business from each other (like if you've ever seen two Starbucks that are ridiculously close to each other in the same town, it's pretty much a guarantee that the 2nd location steals some business from the 1st location)

- Maybe this restaurant serves delicious junk food, and there's a local diet craze that means that even though people still desire the food as much as before, they're buying it less often to stay true to their diet

- Maybe this restaurant raised its prices, so even though people desire the meals, they can't afford to eat there as frequently.

Goal

When an author is Explaining / Interpreting a Curious Fact, (), we weaken either with - An Alternate Explanation for the curious fact or by - Undermining the plausibility of the author's explanation

So we need a different reason why fewer meals are being sold at the restaurants that have been open 2+ years, or we need some fact that makes it seem like consumers desire these meals as much or more than before.

10.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the accountant's argument?

  1. The company’s restaurants last year

    Strengthens

    This might feel like an Alternate Explanation for why the restaurant is selling fewer meals at older locations, but it actually still conforms to the general thought that consumers find the meals less desirable ("Ahhh, they got rid of the McRib? Nevermind, I don't want to go there any more.")

    9% picked this

  2. Prior to last year there

    Strengthens, if anything

    This softly pushes back against alternate explanations like, "Last year was just a down year because of the pandemic. We'll be back to our normal numbers this year, since people still desire our meals." It makes it sound more like this company has been on the decline for a couple of years now.

    7% picked this

  3. Those of the company’s restaurants

    Weak Impact

    If this answer said, "The restaurants that did increase sales did offer large discounts to attract customers", that would sound like a strengthener, because it would suggest that desirability is low enough that restaurants had to stoop to gimmicks to get people in the door. But it doesn't have a big weakening impact to say that restaurants that increased sales did not offer large discounts. They still might have offered small discounts or offered large special prizes or other gimmicks.

    8% picked this

  4. Sales of the company’s most

    No Impact

    Zooming on the most expensive meal isn't really that valuable a data point. We have no idea if the most expensive meal is even a popular choice or a significant source of revenue to begin with. If anything, this might strengthen slightly by pushing back against the likelihood that people have been avoiding the restaurant because they're poorer than they were two years ago. (If money were the main reason for a decline in sales, you'd expect the most expensive meal to take a particularly big hit).

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    Most of the company’s restaurants

    Why this is right

    This provides an Alternate Explanation for why restaurants that have been open 2+ years are selling fewer meals this past year. These older locations are found in places that experienced a severe decline in income last year, so it makes sense that people would be eating out less across the board. Thus, there's no reason to blame the decline in sales to decreased desirability of the product, when it sounds like it could be explained as an industry-wide problem that's more connected to financially struggling people.

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

    72% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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