Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S4 · Q15 According to the proposed Factory

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

According to the proposed Factory Safety Act, a company may operate an automobile factory only if that factory is registered as a class B factory.

Conclusion (thus)

Under the FSA, a factory that makes automobiles can't postpone its safety inspections.

Evidence

Under the FSA, a factory can make automobiles only if it's registered as class B, and no factory can be class B without punctual safety inspections.

Evaluate

We are just trying to describe the type of evidence or type of reasoning move.

The type of evidence is citing specific provisions from the FSA. The reasoning move is essentially chaining together two conditionals:

Auto factory → Class B Class B → Punctual Inspections Thus, Auto factory ----------------→ Punctual Inspections

The three most common tropes in Method are Analogies, Faulty Implications, and Alternatives.

This is like the opposite of Faulty Implications -- it's showing valid implications.

Goal

Let's look for any answer saying something descriptively true.

15.

The argument proceeds by

  1. Correct

    pointing out how two provisions

    Why this is right

    This is getting at the Valid Implications vibe we were anticipating. The evidence discussed two provisions of the FSA: Auto factory → Class B Class B → Punctual Inspections and together, they lead to this implication / entailment. Auto factory ----------------→ Punctual Inspections The conclusion is basically just announcing this head to tail connection. It says that a car factory would not be able to postpone safety inspections. That state of affairs would be unacceptable.

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

    86% picked this

  2. considering two possible interpretations of

    Out of Scope (eliminating interpretations)

    The author mentions two regulations included in a proposed piece of legislation. This answer is making it seem like each of those regulations is just a possible interpretation of the FSA. But those are just component rules within the FSA. The author doesn't evaluate their plausibility or eliminate either one.

    2% picked this

  3. showing that the terms of

    Out of Scope (existing legislation)

    The argument never mentions existing legislation, so it definitely doesn't show how the FSA contradicts existing legislation.

    1% picked this

  4. showing that two different provisions

    Out of Scope (conflicting provisions)

    The two provisions don't conflict. They chain together. And the conclusion isn't saying they can't apply to a particular situation. It's saying, "here's how they collectively apply to the situation of automobile manufacturers".

    8% picked this

  5. pointing out that if a

    Out of Scope (analogous situation)

    The author mentions two provisions that apply to automobile factories, one of them directly and the other indirectly. In virtue of being an automobile factory, you must be class B, and in virtue of being class B, you must have punctual inspections. These provisions are only discussed in relation to auto factories. There aren't any analogous situations they are applied to.

    4% 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