Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S4 · Q4 The government-owned gas company has

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

The government-owned gas company has begun selling stoves and other gas appliances to create a larger market for its gas.

Conclusion

The government-owned gas company is within its rights to sell stoves and other gas appliances.

Evidence

A private gas company would be allowed to sell such appliances without anyone seeing anything wrong with it.

Evaluate

The argument leaps from "a private gas company would be allowed to" to That works only if government-owned companies have the same rights as private ones (in this domain). The argument needs a principle that licenses transferring permissions from private companies to government-owned companies.

Goal

Find an answer that says: government-owned companies have the right to do what private businesses have the right to do.

4.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

  1. Correct

    Government-owned companies have the right

    Why this is right

    This is exactly the bridge the argument needs. The author argues from "a private gas company could do this" to "the government-owned gas company can do this." That move requires the principle that government-owned companies have whatever rights private businesses have. Apply (A) to the facts and the conclusion follows directly: private companies have the right to sell appliances → government-owned companies have that same right.

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

    98% picked this

  2. A government should always take

    Bad Match

    This says the government should take merchant complaints seriously. The argument's conclusion is that the company is within its rights regardless of merchant complaints — i.e., the merchants' protests don't change the legal/ethical analysis. This principle, if anything, points the other way (suggesting complaints should weigh in). It doesn't justify the conclusion.

    0% picked this

  3. Private businesses have no right

    Bad Match

    This says private businesses have no right to compete with government monopolies. The argument is about whether the government-owned company can compete with private merchants — the opposite direction. (C) doesn't address whether government-owned companies have the right to compete, which is the question at issue.

    0% picked this

  4. There is nothing wrong with

    Bad Match

    This principle ties government rights to whether private companies complain. But the argument doesn't say anything about whether private gas companies are complaining — the complaints come from merchants. And the argument concludes that the company is within its rights without making the conclusion contingent on absence of private-company complaints. The principle adds a wrinkle the argument doesn't need.

    0% picked this

  5. There is nothing wrong with

    Bad Match

    This principle is about private companies competing against each other. The argument is about a government-owned company competing with private merchants — different parties, different framing. (E) doesn't bridge the argument's leap from private rights to government rights.

    2% 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