Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S3 · Q5 Hernandez: I recommend

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

Hernandez: I recommend that staff cars be replaced every four years instead of every three years.

Evaluation

How would we describe Hernandez's response? It sounds like he understands Green's concern --- some cars get extra use because they have big territories and they wear out sooner. He's re-framing his suggestion to Green, When we carve out exceptions or narrow the scope of what we're talking about, we are qualifying a claim / a suggestion / a definition.

Goal

Look for something like narrowing the parameters of his suggestion, acknowledging that Green has brought up exceptional cases that indeed should not apply.

5.

In the conversation, Hernandez responds to Green's objection in which one of the following ways?

  1. Correct

    by explicitly qualifying a premise

    Why this is right

    Hernandez had a premise that said "three-year old cars are still in good condition", and now he wants to qualify that premise to mean, "three-year old cars, that haven't been subjected to excessive use, are still in good condition"

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

    88% picked this

  2. by criticizing salespeople who wear

    Out of Scope: "criticizing"

    Hernandez isn't scolding anyone for wearing out their cars earlier. He understands it's because they cover bigger territories.

    1% picked this

  3. by disputing the accuracy of

    Out of Scope: "disputing accuracy"

    Hernandez accepts what Green is saying. He adjusts his thoughts accordingly, saying, "you're right -- I mean cars that aren't subjected to such heavy use"

    2% picked this

  4. by changing the subject to

    Out of Scope: "changing subject"

    Hernandez doesn't change the subject. Green is the one who brings up sales territories.

    3% picked this

  5. by indicating that Green used

    Out of Scope: "used phrase ambiguously"

    Hernandez doesn't seem confused by Green's response. He's just like, "Yeah, obviously some cars are run-down by the three year mark. But normally they're still good at that point."

    6% 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