Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT12 S1 Q22 Explanation

At the end of the year

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsSufficient Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

At the end of the year, Wilson’s Department Store awards free merchandise to its top salespeople. When presented with the fact that the number of salespeople receiving these awards has declined markedly over the past fifteen years, the newly appointed president of the company responded, “In that case, since our award criterion the number of salespeople passed over for these awards has similarly declined.”

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
22.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the company president’s conclusion to

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: hiring policies4% picked this

    Policies at Wilson’s with regard to hiring salespeople have not become more lax over the

    The only thing that can affect the conclusion being true is whether the criterion for giving these awards has always been the same. If the criterion for the award has always been "top 1/3", then the conclusion follows logically. But if the criterion shifted from "the top 50%" to "the top 1/3", then the conclusion wouldn't follow. 15 years ago (top 50%) 100 employees, 50 get awards, 50 don't now (top 1/3) 90 employees, 30 get awards, 60 don't With this shift in criterion, the conclusion doesn't follow. There are more people being passed over now than in the past. This answer is talking about how strict their hiring policies are, but this argument is purely about the mathematics of what share of employees get an award. So information about hiring practices can't seal the deal logically.

  2. Weakens12% picked this

    The number of salespeople at Wilson’s has increased over the past

    This answer feels very counterintuitive. Since the number of people getting awards was declining, and since the author was saying that the number of people not-getting awards was also declining, it feels like there should be fewer salespeople, not more. If the criterion for the award has always been "top 1/3", and the number of salespeople has increased, then conclusion would be contradicted. 15 years ago (top 1/3) 120 employees, 40 get awards, 80 don't now (top 1/3) 150 employees, 50 get awards, 100 don't Since this answer seems to contradict the conclusion, it definitely doesn't allow us to prove the conclusion.

  3. Correct59% picked this

    The criterion used by Wilson’s for selecting its award recipients has remained the same for

    Why this is right

    The only thing that can affect the conclusion being true is whether the criterion for giving these awards has always been the same. If the criterion for the award has always been "top 1/3", then the conclusion follows logically.

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

  4. Out of Scope: sales figures15% picked this

    The average total sales figures for Wilson’s salespeople have been declining

    The only thing that can affect the conclusion being true is whether the criterion for giving these awards has always been the same. If the criterion for the award has always been "top 1/3", then the conclusion follows logically. But if the criterion shifted from "the top 50%" to "the top 1/3", then the conclusion wouldn't follow. 15 years ago (top 50%) 100 employees, 50 get awards, 50 don't now (top 1/3) 90 employees, 30 get awards, 60 don't With this shift in criterion, the conclusion doesn't follow. There are more people being passed over now than in the past. This answer is talking about total sales figures, but this argument is purely about the mathematics of what share of employees get an award. So information about overall sales can't seal the deal logically.

  5. Out of Scope: how it calculates9% picked this

    Wilson’s calculates its salespeople’s sales figures in the same way as it did

    This is similar to the correct answer, but we don't need to know that the company uses the same methods nowadays to rank all their salespeople's performance. We need to know, once those rankings are established, how Wilson's decides which ones get the award. If 15 years ago, the share of employees getting the award was 1/3 or less, then the conclusion mathematically follows, no matter how Wilson's decided on those sales figures.

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