Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S3 · Q16 Retailers that excel in neither

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

Retailers that excel in neither convenience nor variety of merchandise tend not to be very successful.

Conclusion (hence)

A retailer's success need not depend on excellence in both convenience and variety.

Evidence

Many successful retailers excel in only one of the two areas, and are average for the other.

Evaluate

We can probably get away with a conversational summary of this argument since it's build on only one premise.

The argument is saying,

If we want a little more formality, the conclusion needs the form,

And the evidence needs the form, .

Goal

Let's start by looking at conclusions, because if they don't have that vibe of "X doesn't depend on Y", then they're hopeless.

Technically, the argument doesn't need to mimic the idea of "great at both".

At its essence, it's saying

16.

The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    Runners who have only average

    Why this is right

    The conclusion does look like a good match for "X doesn't depend at being great at Y and Z". Being a long distance champion doesn't require being great at speed and endurance. Now we just need to make sure there is a premise that says there are examples of long distance champions who either weren't great at speed or weren't great at endurance. Indeed, it tells us that Some long-distance champions were only great at speed, or were only great at endurance. Looks pretty good. It has the same logical essence as the original: "X doesn't require Y. After all, you can find X without Y." We might notice a couple superficial differences and keep checking out other answers to see if there's a better match. OTHER MATCHING LAYERS This also began with a counterpoint that matches the original. That wasn't necessary for the logic of the actual argument, but it does make (A) even more similar. MISMATCHING LAYERS - the premise here is about SOME counterexamples, whereas the original premise is about MANY counterexamples. That's not logically important, since you only need one counterexample to prove that "X doesn't need Y", but it is different. - the premise establishes that they are not great at both, like the original. But the original also said that they were average when it came to the not-great trait. This one doesn't say that. Again, not logically important, because the logic comes from the fact that they are champions, even though they are not great at both things. It doesn't actually matter if they're terrible at either thing or just average. As long as we know they're not great at both, it serves the same purpose.

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

    73% picked this

  2. Bicyclists who have only average

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We don't need to examine this one beyond its conclusion. It is not making a claim of the form "X does not require Y". Its conclusion says "Most X's are ~Y"

    1% picked this

  3. Excellence in a particular swimming

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We don't need to examine this one beyond its conclusion. It is not making a claim of the form "X does not require Y". Its conclusion says "Anything that is X is almost certainly Y"

    1% picked this

  4. Apples that are neither especially

    Bad Evidence Match

    This does have a conclusion the form "X does not require both Y and Z". best eating apples don't need to be both Firm and Flavorful. That means we're checking for a premise that shows at least one example of an apple that was best for eating that was either ~Firm, ~Flavorful, or both. We do see a premise saying "many flavorful apples that are soft (~Firm) are suitable for eating" Hmm, close, but "best for eating" is different than "suitable for eating". Also, the evidence is only providing examples of Flavorful but Not Firm. It doesn't also point to examples of Firm but not Flavorful. In the original and in (A), the premise was saying there are examples of each of the two traits appearing without the other one being present. If we didn't catch that discrepancy, we could also notice the premise - Flavor is required for eating and think, "The original never said that either of the two traits was required." We could also hate on the initial counterpoint. If it were going to match the original, it would sound more like, Apples that are neither really firm nor really flavorful tend to not be the best for eating. This one is instead talking about baking.

    22% picked this

  5. Most plants that are neither

    Weaker Conclusion Match

    The conclusion isn't quite of the form "X does not require Y". Its conclusion says "Not all X's and Y's are Z's" If we were being really charitable, we could say that this is just a paraphrase for, "being X or Y doesn't require Z". But we don't need to be charitable since we have (A), which doesn't require any translation. This argument does validly prove its conclusion, because it does provide counterexamples where something is X or Y without being Z. But it's way less similar to the original than (A). (A) focused on the idea of "you don't need to be great at both. Here are counterexamples where they're only great at one." That's way closer to the original argument than, "Not all X's and Y's are Z. There are examples of X's and Y's that are not Z."

    3% 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