Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S1 · Q6 Frankie: If jelly makers were given

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

Frankie: If jelly makers were given incentives to make a certain percentage of their jellies from cloudberries, income for cloudberry gatherers would increase.

Conclusion (Anna)

Frankie's plan would fail — incentivizing cloudberry use would not raise income for cloudberry gatherers, because farms would supplant wild gatherers.

Evidence

Cacao was once gathered from wild plants. When demand grew, gatherers couldn't keep up, farms took over, and now all cacao is farmed. Anna projects the same trajectory for cloudberries.

Evaluate

Anna's technique: take a past case (cacao) and apply its trajectory to a current proposal (cloudberries). She uses the past situation as a model to predict what will happen if Frankie's plan is adopted.

Goal

The right answer should describe Anna's use of a past case to project the outcome of a current proposal.

6.

Anna's argument proceeds by

  1. Giving a reason why a

    Bad Description

    Anna does the opposite of arguing the proposal is beneficial — she predicts it would fail to help cloudberry gatherers. So she certainly isn't giving a reason the proposal benefits everyone affected.

    0% picked this

  2. Reinterpreting evidence presented in support

    Bad Description

    Anna does not reinterpret evidence Frankie offered. Frankie didn't present any evidence — just a prediction. Anna brings in entirely new material (the cacao history) rather than rereading anything Frankie said.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    Projecting the result of following

    Why this is right

    This describes exactly what Anna does. Frankie proposes a course of action (incentivizing cloudberry use). Anna projects its outcome — that gatherers' income won't rise — by comparing the cloudberry situation to a past situation, the trajectory of cacao from wild gathering to large-scale farming. The past case is her model for predicting what the proposal will produce.

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

    94% picked this

  4. Proposing a general theory as

    Bad Description

    Anna doesn't propose a general theory. She reasons from one specific case (cacao) to one specific case (cloudberries). There's no overarching principle she states and applies; the comparison is concrete-to-concrete.

    0% picked this

  5. Contending that the uses for

    Bad Description

    Anna doesn't argue that the uses of one product are similar to the uses of another. The cacao parallel is about supply trajectories — wild-gathered to farmed — not about how the products are used. The two products are compared as commodities going through the same supply transition, not as items with similar applications.

    2% 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