Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT111 S3 Q10 Explanation

Goswami: I support the striking

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsAgree/Disagree

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Goswami: I support the striking workers at Ergon Foods. They are underpaid. The majority of them $20,000 per year.

Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers is over $29,000.

What this question is testing

Agree/Disagree

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
10.

Goswmi and Nordecki disagree over the truth of which one of the

Answer choices

  1. No Support from Person 19% picked this

    The average annual salary at Ergon Foods is

    We know that N agrees with this (he explicitly said it). But we don't have any ammunition to support that G would disagree. We can't point to anything that sounds like G saying, "the average salary is not over $29,000". G just talked about most workers making less than $20k, but that's still compatible with average pay being over $29k.

  2. No Support from Either12% picked this

    Pay is the primary issue over which the workers are striking

    We can't tell from either person's statements what the primary issue is for why workers are striking. We only know that G's primary reason for supporting the workers is pay, but that doesn't mean that the striking workers consider this the primary reason for why they're striking. We could fix this answer by saying, "Pay is the primary issue that should motivate someone to support these striking workers". G would agree and N would disagree with that.

  3. Both Probably Agree2% picked this

    It is reasonable to support striking workers who

    It would be too hard to infer that either person is disagreeing with this, because that person would be saying, "It is unreasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid". Nordecki is the one closer to sounding like that, but he isn't saying that it's unreasonable to support striking workers. He's saying these workers aren't underpaid. Their average salary is over $29k.

  4. Correct72% picked this

    The striking workers at Ergon Foods

    Why this is right

    We know that G agrees because she explicitly says "They (the striking workers) are underpaid." We can support that N disagrees because he says, "Well, if pay is your concern, I'm out. (I'm not worried about pay. After all ... ) the average salary of the striking workers is over $29k." p.s. I know this is test 30, which was 20 years ago, but it's weird that LSAC wants us to hear "Hey they make over $29k" as "Hey, they're not underpaid".

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

  5. No Support from Person 24% picked this

    It was unreasonable for the workers at Ergon Foods to go

    We know that G would disagree with this. She supports the striking workers, so she implicitly thinks it was reasonable for them to go on strike. We can't say that N would agree with this, though. He only speaks on a conditional basis. "If pay is the issue, then I think the strike is unreasonable." But maybe pay wasn't the only or even the main issue. So it's too sweeping of a claim for us to support that N has already condemned this whole strike as unreasonable. Someone might be trying to get me to see a movie with Lady Gaga in it. If I say, "well if it's a cartoon, then I don't want to see it." We can't infer from that claim that, "Patrick doesn't want to see any movie with Lady Gaga in it." I qualified my refusal. I only rejected "cartoon movies w/ Lady Gaga".

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