Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S3 · Q6 Executive: We recently ran

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

Executive: We recently ran a set of advertisements in the print version of a travel magazine and on that magazine's website.

Conclusion

Consumer response to the print ads was probably worse than average, like the response for the website ads.

Evidence

We don't have any direct info about the print ads, but we ran a set of ads in print and on our website, and the response to the website ads was way worse than what's typical for website ads.

Evaluation

This seems to present a classic Comparison. The author assumes that , without considering possible important differences that would lead the print ad to perform better than the website ad. Our job here is just to describe, though, so we just need to say the author got to her conclusion via a comparison.

Goal

The author concludes that something was likely true of X, since it was true for Y (which similar, but not identical, to X)

6.

The executive's reasoning does which one of the following?

  1. bases a prediction of the

    Bad Premise Match

    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% picked this

  2. uses information about the typical

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    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% picked this

  3. infers a statistical generalization from

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    uses a case in which

    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% picked this

  5. bases a prediction about future

    Bad Conclusion Match

    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% 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