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

Start practicing free

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.

Environmentalist's Conclusion

The oil company has no such (environmental) concern.

Environmentalist's Intermediate Conclusion

Your real concern is sales.

Environmentalist's Evidence

The company admitted that photos of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to its public image, which affects sales.

Evaluate

We need a way to prove that the oil company doesn't have an environmental concern.

The evidence tries to establish that the company is concerned about their public image and thus about sales.

The oil company could say, "True, but we're also concerned about the environment."

Goal

We need an answer that gets us from what we know from the evidence:

- they're worried about public image / they're worried about sales

to what we need to know:

- they're NOT worried about the environment

22.

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

  1. Correct

    oil company cannot have more

    Why this is right

    This gets us from evidence to conclusion. The evidence establishes that the oil company is motivated by public image / sales concerns. 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; there's no room for an environmental concern. The oil company couldn't argue, "Sure, but we're also motivated by concern for the environment". According to this rule, you only get one motive. So if you are motivated your public image, then you can't be motivated by environmental concern.

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

    78% picked this

  2. otter population in the area

    Out of Scope

    We need a rule that would allow us to prove that the oil company doesn't have concern for the environment. This answer isn't using any wording relating to that, so it will be powerless to accomplish the mission.

    1% picked this

  3. oil company has always shown

    Bad Assumption

    This doubles down on what we already know, which is that the oil company was somewhat motivated by sales/profits. But the hole in the argument is that a company could be motivated by both profits AND concern for the environment. We need a rule that would allow us to prove that the oil company doesn't have concern for the environment. This answer reminds us that the company cares about profits, but it doesn't give us any way to prove that the oil company isn't ALSO motivated by concern for the environment.

    19% picked this

  4. government would have spent the

    Out of Scope

    We need a rule that would allow us to prove that the oil company doesn't have concern for the environment. This answer suggests that the oil company didn't need to intervene for environmental reasons. The government would have cleaned the otters otherwise. That makes it more likely that they intervened because of the public image / sales part. But "more likely" ≠ "proves". This maybe strengthens, but it doesn't guarantee the oil company had no environmental motive. Maybe the company didn't know the government would step in otherwise. Maybe the company didn't think the government would do as good a job at cleaning the otters. There are still ways to argue that the company had environmental concerns.

    1% picked this

  5. 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.

    0% 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