Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S2 · Q3 David: Forbidding companies from

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

David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be profoundly unfair.

David's Explicit Claims

1. Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking employees would be very unfair.

2. Companies who aren't allowed to hire permanent replacements would have little leverage in negotiating with strikers.

Lin's Responses

1. UNCLEAR - Lin doesn't quite come out and say . We'd have to infer that belief purely from "No", and that's not a super sound basis.

2. DISAGREES - he says they would still have plenty of leverage.

Goal

The question stem isn't actually Agree / Disagree, so it's not clear whether that's how we should be thinking or not. There is an explicit disagreement, so on the first pass let's look for an answer about whether or not companies who can't hire permanent replacements would have a decent amount of leverage with striking workers.

But since it's just a Most Supported question, we just want the most provable answer.

3.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the exchange between David and Lin?

  1. David does not believe that

    Opposite

    David absolutely believes that being able to hire temps gives companies leverage. He thinks that forbidding them from being able to hire temps means they are left with almost no leverage.

    3% picked this

  2. David and Lin believe that

    Unsupported Comparison (as much)

    We can tell they both think that companies should have at least a good bit of leverage in negotiations with striking employees. But it's getting overly precise to weigh in on whether they both think that companies deserve equal leverage as the striking employees.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    David and Lin disagree over

    Why this is right

    Well, even though this didn't have a Disagree question stem, it played out just like a Disagree question. We can tell that David and Lin disagree about how much leverage is lost by forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements. David thinks it takes companies all the way down to "little leverage", whereas Lin doesn't think it takes them down that far. She thinks they still have plenty of leverage. When it comes to the four answer that mention Lin, this is really the only idea we have any ammunition to weigh in on. The only thing she said is that a company who can't hire replacements still has sufficient leverage.

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

    82% picked this

  4. David and Lin disagree over

    Half Scope (should)

    Although David is using normative language (unfair), Lin is only using descriptive language, so we have no idea how much leverage she thinks a company should have. She only comments on how much they would have.

    9% picked this

  5. Lin believes it is unfair

    Opposite (if anything)

    This is David's position. We don't officially know Lin's position, but if anything it looks like she's disagreeing with this.

    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