Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT114 S1 Q2 Explanation

Last month OCF, Inc., announced

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation. Three days later ErgoTech unveiled an almost identical product. The two companies claim that the similarities are coincidental and occurred because the designers independently reached the same solution to the same problem. The similarities are of controls. Both allow the same types of adjustments and the same types of optional enhancements.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

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
2.

The main point of the argument

Answer choices

  1. Bad Match3% picked this

    the two products have many characteristics

    The conclusion is that "these similarities can't be a coincidence!" This is just saying there are similarities.

  2. Too Specific / Speculation Author's Next Thought2% picked this

    ErgoTech must have copied the design of its new product from

    The author's conclusion is that "this can't be a coincidence, right?" So he may think that one company copied the design from the other. And he may distrust ErgoTech more than OCF, so maybe his next thought would be, "Those rats at ErgoTech must have stolen OCF's design." But that's a total speculation on our parts. We're supposed to stop where the author did: "this can't be a coincidence".

  3. Correct92% picked this

    the similarities between the two products are

    Why this is right

    This matches the 4th sentence, which we identified as the Author's main conclusion. It has the two hallmarks of a main conclusion: 1. it is an opinion from the author 2. it is supported by other claims (everything that follows) And remember on Main Conclusion, the conclusion will almost always be - the first sentence or - the author rebutting some position

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

  4. Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

    product designers sometimes reach the same solution to a given problem without

    We're looking for "the similarities can't be a coincidence". This doesn't sound anywhere close to that.

  5. Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

    new products that at first appear to be unique are sometimes simply variations

    We're looking for "the similarities can't be a coincidence". This doesn't sound anywhere close to that.

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