Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S1 · Q5 Large discount chains can make

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

Large discount chains can make a profit even while offering low prices, because they buy goods in large quantities at favorable cost.

Conclusion (Hence)

Small retailers that are forced to compete with large discount chains must offer exceptional service in order to retain their level of profitability.

Evidence

They can't retain profitability while matching prices with large discount chains (who have an economy-of-scale advantage there).

If they offer exceptional service, they can retain customers.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing a Flaw question and see Conditional Logic, we want to look out for the #1 famous flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient.

This argument presented a conditional, using the sufficient indicator "if":

If they offer → small companies can exceptional service retain customers and profitability

Does the author proceed to think about this rule in opposite or inverted fashion?

Yes! The author is thinking that

retaining customers offering and profitability -- requires --> exceptional service

Exceptional service is identified as one possible (i.e. sufficient) way to retain customers without losing profits, but the author is acting like it's the only way to do so (i.e. necessary).

Goal

Since this question stem ends with "fails to consider that", we shouldn't go looking for the usual abstract description that describes the Necessary vs. Sufficient error.

Fails to consider indicates that we're about to hear potential weakening ideas.

When an author presents X → Y, but then illicitly thinks Y → X, we object that it's possible for Y to happen but X not to happen.

So here we're thinking,

The reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account the possibility that

not all large discount chains
No Impact
Can we weaken this argument by saying, "at least one large discount chain does not make a profit"? No. We can only weaken this argument by pointing out that there could be other ways, besides offering exceptional service, that allow a small retailer to retain its customers without lowering its prices.
2% picked this
some large discount chains have
No Impact
Can we weaken this argument by saying, "at least one large discount chain has a lower profit margin than at least one small retailer?" No. We can only weaken this argument by pointing out that there could be other ways, besides offering exceptional service, that allow a small retailer to retain its customers without lowering its prices. Also, it's already common sense that large discount chains have lower profit margins. Their whole business model is to make pennies over cost but to sell in such high volume that those minor profit margins still add up to big profits.
5% picked this
small retailers are often motivated
No Impact
Can we weaken this argument by saying, "Often, small retailers aren't super worried about profit?" No, because this conclusion isn't claiming or assuming that all small retailers care about retaining their level of profitability. It's only claiming that if a small retailer did want to compete with a big box store while retaining current profitability, it would be required that they offer exceptional service.
7% picked this
not all small retailers are
No Impact
Can we weaken this argument by saying, "At least one small retailer isn't forced to compete with a large discount chain"? No, because this conclusion isn't claiming or assuming that all small retailers are forced to compete with large discount chains. It's only claiming that if a small retailer does have to compete with a big box store while retaining current profitability, it would be required that they offer exceptional service.
6% picked this
Correct
exceptional service is not the
Why this is right
This answer doesn't prove the conclusion wrong; it doesn't prove that there is another way to retain profitability and customers, while competing with a big-box store. But to Weaken an argument you don't have to prove the conclusion wrong. You just have to create some doubt, or score a point for the Defense attorney. If there are other things besides exceptional service that make people prefer a small retail store over a large discount chain, then that opens up the possibility that you don't have to have exceptional service to compete with a large discount chain. You could possibly have some of these other advantages that small retail stores have (better location? closer to other stores? easier to get in / get out with what you were looking for?) and still compete.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% 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