Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S1 · Q2 Last month OCF, Inc., announced

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

Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a unique new product: an adjustable computer workstation.

Conclusion

The similarities between these two computer workstations are too fundamental to be a coincidence.

Evidence

They look alike, work alike, have the same odd shape, identically placed control panels, same control, and same options for adjustments and enhancements.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion and Role questions, remind ourselves that the Conclusion is usually earlier than the Support. 90% of the time, it's the first sentence of the paragraph, or it's some sort of Rebuttal claim.

The first sentence here is not an opinion, so it can't be the author's conclusion. The first and second sentences sound like chronological facts. The third sentence is an attribution: "The two companies claim ..."

When we hear an attribution, what do we expect?

We expect to hear the author pivot (but, yet, however) into a rebuttal. That 4th sentence is our author's opinion. Everything that follows it supports it.

Goal

Because this question stem says Main Point rather than Main Conclusion, it may sound like the 4th sentence, our main conclusion.

Or it may sound a little more holistic. Main Point is rare, but the answer tends to involve implied conclusions or broader restatements.

2.

The main point of the argument is that

  1. the two products have many

    Bad Match

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

    4% picked this

  2. ErgoTech must have copied the

    Too Specific / Speculation Author's Next Thought

    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".

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    the similarities between the two

    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.

    92% picked this

  4. product designers sometimes reach the

    Unrelated to Goal

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

    2% picked this

  5. new products that at first

    Unrelated to Goal

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

    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