Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S4 · Q21 Pizzerias are the only restaurants

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

Pizzerias are the only restaurants that routinely record the names, addresses, and menu selections of their customers.

Conclusion (therefore)

Pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants.

Evidence

Pizzerias, unlike other restaurants, routinely record the names / addresses / menu selection of their customers to that they can easily identify regular / average / infrequent customers.

Evaluate

We're trying to prove the wording "use direct-mail more effectively". Did the premise provide us with some rule, some proving-mechanism that sounds like, if xyz, then use direct-mail more effectively?

No. So the correct answer will have to provide us with such a rule.

What is it about pizzerias that the evidence thinks is special, compared to other restaurants? They're the only ones who routinely record the names / addresses / menu selections of customers.

Goal

Look for something like

if you routinely record then you utilize names / addresses / direct mail menu selections of → marketing more customers and other effectively than X's don't other X's do

21.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the argument's conclusion to be properly inferred?

  1. Restaurants other than pizzerias cannot

    Unrelated to Goal

    This establishes that the 2nd sentence is also something distinct about pizzerias. But since this answer doesn't contain the wording "utilize direct-mail more effectively" (and neither did the evidence), there's no way to combine this with the evidence and derive that pizzerias "utilize direct-mail more effectively. If I'm trying to prove A = Z, you can give me lots of fun facts about A, like A = B, and B = C, and C = D. But if I don't have any facts about Z, I'll never be able to derive that A = Z.

    8% picked this

  2. For restaurants, utilizing direct-mail marketing

    Too Weak

    This doesn't give us a rule that says, "If xyz is true, then you utilize direct-mail marketing more effectively". But at least it does talk about utilizing direct-mail marketing. If this answer allowed us to prove that other restaurants don't utilize direct-mail marketing at all, then maybe we could prove that Pizzerias utilize it more effectively (but we were never actually told that Pizzerias utilize direct-mail marketing either). Regardless, this answer does not allow us to say that other restaurants do not utilize direct-mail marketing. We know that all non-pizzeria restaurants fail to routinely record the names / addresses / menu selections of their customers. But it's still possible that sometimes they do, so we can't trigger this rule and derive that other restaurants don't use direct-mail marketing at all.

    10% picked this

  3. For restaurants, the identification of

    Unrelated to Goal

    This establishes that the 2nd sentence is related to the 1st one (which we pretty much already knew). And more importantly, this answer doesn't contain the wording "utilize direct-mail more effectively", so it's functionally useless to us.

    2% picked this

  4. Utilizing direct-mail marketing is rarely

    Unrelated to Goal

    This answer doesn't contain the wording "utilize direct-mail more effectively", so it wouldn't allow us to derive that wording in our conclusion. If we knew that other restaurants "cannot identify regular / average / infrequent" customers, then this answer would allow us to say that utilizing direct-mail marketing is rarely beneficial for them. But, (A) we don't know that. These other restaurants might be able to identify regular / avg / infrequent customers. (B) establishing that direct-mail marketing is rarely beneficial for them is not the same as proving that they use direct-mail marketing less effectively.

    10% picked this

  5. Correct

    Restaurants that routinely record names,

    Why this is right

    This was the only answer choice to actually have the New Term in the conclusion which we knew we needed (utilize direct-mail more effectively). This is a rule that says if you routinely record then you utilize names / addresses / menu → direct mail selections of customers marketing more effectively than other restaurants We know that the trigger applies to Pizzerias, so according to this rule "Pizzerias utilize direct mail marketing more effectively than do other restaurants". Thus, this answer choice added to our existing evidence allows us to derive the conclusion.

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

    70% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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