Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S3 · Q15 For a ten-month period, the total

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

For a ten-month period, the total monthly sales of new cars within the country of Calistan remained constant.

Statements

Over the course of 10 months,

Calistan overall monthly new = constant car sales

Marvel Auto Company monthly new = doubled car sales

market share = doubled

After those 10 months,

Emission rules are imposed across the country of Calistan.

Marvel Auto Company monthly new = still just as high car sales

market share = declined a lot

Evaluate

On Must Be False questions, we expect the answer to contradict a conditional that the paragraph provided, or to contradict some Must Be True inference we can make.

There weren't any conditionals in this paragraph, so we'd shift to Must Be True thinking.

There was a lot of Mathematical information, so there is probably a math-y inference we're supposed to be seeing. The overlapping concepts are "Marvel, Calistan, monthly sales, market share", all of which are mentioned at least twice.

The first two sentences tell us that a country's new car auto market overall was stable for a 10 month period during which Marvel was doubling sales and doubling market share.

Do those two facts yield a mathematical inference?

Sort of. We know that some other new car dealer in Calistan is doing worse than they were doing before, in terms of sales and market share. The extra sales and extra market share that Marvel is earning has to be coming at the expense some other car sellers in Calistan.

The last sentence says that during a 3 month period, Marvel's market share declined while its level of sales remained the same.

Do those two facts yield a math-y inference?

Yes. Suppose a business has been earning x dollars per month and currently has a 20% market share (that means of all the money that gets spent on that type of product, this company is receiving 20% of it). What does it mean if that business continues earning x dollars per month, but now only has a 15% market share?

It means that the market has grown. More money is being spent on that product by consumers than before. Your business is bringing in the same revenue as before, but that pile of revenue is a smaller percentage of the overall market.

Finally, we should address the middle sentence, which tells us that emission standards were imposed in between the 10 month period and the 3 month period. Should we infer that the changes observed during the 3 month period were caused by the emission standards?

No. That is not a must be true inference. That's speculating a plausible causal hypothesis, but not a mandatory truth.

Goal

Look for an answer contradicting one of the math inferences (probably the 2nd one, since that one was so hard to figure out). Expect trap answers dealing with the causal inferences we can't make regarding the emissions standards.

If we want, as we consider each answer, we can essentially ask ourselves,

15.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?

  1. Correct

    The total monthly sales within

    Why this is right

    This answer contradicts the final sentence. During these 3 months, Marvel made the same amount of money each month as they had before. But now that monthly pile of money was a much smaller percentage of the overall market. That tells us that the overall market was bigger than before. If the overall market is bigger than before (there's more total revenue being made in this industry), but Marvel's monthly income is still the same, then it has to be other companies that are making this new, extra money. If $1 million / month in sales previously meant 20% of the overall market, and now, during this 3 month period, you're still making $1 million / month but that only represents 13% of the overall market, then the market has grown. There's more money out there, but clearly you aren't getting it. So if you added up all the other companies' monthly sales, it would have to be higher than it used to be.

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

    62% picked this

  2. Over the three months before

    Out of Scope: 3 months before

    We know about a ten month period before the emission standards and about a three month period after the emission standards. This answer is about a three month period before. We don't know anything that's specific to those three months. What we do know about the 10 month period essentially agrees with this. Marvel's market share was increasing (it doubled) so other companies' market shares were decreasing.

    9% picked this

  3. If the emission standards had

    Compatible

    This answer essentially says that Marvel was going to lose market share during that 3 month period either way, and that the emission standards actually helped Marvel lose a smaller amount of the market than they otherwise would have. This is definitely not supported by the paragraph, but it's not contradicted. This is getting at the potential causal speculation we might have that the emission standards had a causal effect on Marvel's numbers in the 3 months that followed the imposition of the new standards. Maybe the emissions standards did affect Marvel's numbers. Maybe not. We can't prove any causal connection is true, nor could we prove that one is false.

    11% picked this

  4. A decrease in the total

    Compatible

    This answer is saying that the emissions standards will lead to a decrease in the total monthly sales of new cars. In the 3 months since the standards were imposed, the market has actually grown in terms of overall sales, so this, like (C), goes against the gist of the paragraph. But nothing in the paragraph contradicts this prediction. To pick this answer we have to be able to prove, from the paragraph, that if emission standards continue (past the 3 month period we know about), overall monthly sales in the country will not decrease. We can't prove the future. So we can't contradict this answer.

    5% picked this

  5. Since the imposition of the

    Out of Scope: profit

    Phew. After a grueling stimulus and concomitant set of answers, this choice gives us a little out of scope excuse to ignore it. Since the paragraph never references "profit" (or gives us the Revenue - Expenses ingredients we would need to calculate it), there's no way we could prove any claim about profit is true or false.

    13% 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