Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S2 · Q22 Oil company representative: We spent

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

Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project.

Oil Rep's Position

The oil company spent more cleaning otters than any previous marine mammal rescue. This shows the company's concern for the environment.

Environmentalist's Conclusion

The oil company has no such (environmental) concern.

Environmentalist's Evidence

The company admitted that photos of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to its public image, which affects sales. So the company's real concern is sales.

Evaluate

The environmentalist leaps from "real concern is sales" to "no concern for the environment." That works only if the company can't have both concerns at once. If a company can have multiple motives — sales-driven and environment-driven — then evidence of a sales motive doesn't establish absence of an environmental concern.

Goal

Find a sufficient assumption: if it's true, the conclusion follows. The environmentalist needs the principle that the company can't have more than one motive for cleaning the otters.

22.

The environmentalist’s conclusion would be properly drawn if it were true that the

Correct
oil company cannot have more
Why this is right
This is the bridge. If the oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters, then once we've identified the sales motive, we've identified the only motive — and there's no room for an environmental concern. With this assumption added, the environmentalist's "real concern is sales → no environmental concern" inference goes through cleanly.
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
otter population in the area
Out of Scope
Whether the otter population could have survived without the cleaning is irrelevant to the company's motivation. The argument is about why the company cleaned the otters, not about whether the otters needed the cleaning. This doesn't bridge the gap.
1% picked this
oil company has always shown
Bad Assumption
Even if the oil company has always shown high regard for profits, that doesn't close the gap. A profit-loving company could still also care about the environment in some cases. Without the additional premise that motives are mutually exclusive, this doesn't force the conclusion.
18% picked this
government would have spent the
Out of Scope
Whether the government would have done the cleanup if the oil company hadn't doesn't bear on the company's actual motives. The argument is about why the company acted, not what would have happened in counterfactual scenarios. This is on a different track.
1% picked this
oil company’s efforts toward cleaning
Out of Scope
How successful the company's otter-cleaning was compared to previous projects is irrelevant to motive. The argument is about why the company spent the money, not about how well the project worked.
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