Executive: We recently ran

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

TopicsMethod

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

Free to start

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

Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print version of a travel magazine and on that magazine's website. We were unable to get any direct information about consumer response to the print ads. However, we found that consumer response to the ads on the website was much more limited response to the print ads was probably below par as well.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question

The executive's reasoning does which one of

Answer choices

Bad Premise Match1% picked this
bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of
Is the conclusion "a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon"? Sure, tracking consumer response to print ads could probably be interpreted as predicting the intensity of response rate to print ads. Is the premise about the intensity of what causes people to respond to print ads? Nope.
1%
Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match9% picked this
uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to draw a conclusion about the probability of a
The author uses information about the performance of a related event (the response rate to the website ad) to draw a conclusion about the performance of a different event (the response rate to the print ad). This answer choice is saying that the Evidence was about a general kind and the conclusion was about a specific instance. This argument doesn't move from a general to a specific: it moves from one specific (web) to another specific (print).
9%
Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match1% picked this
infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of
Is the author's conclusion a statistical generalization? Nope. It's a specific prediction about how print ads are doing. There's no reason to keep reading this answer, but the premise also doesn't match this argument's evidence.
1%
Correct88% picked this
uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in
Why this is right
Direct evidence is available for web ads. The author uses that direct evidence to draw a conclusion about print ads, which are analogous because it's the same ad just in a different medium. There was no direct evidence available for the print ads. Everything matches.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
88%
Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this
bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent
Is the conclusion a prediction about future events? No. The author is "predicting" the response rate to print ads, but it's already happened. The conclusion is actually written in the past tense: "the response was probably below par".
2%

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