Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S3 Q5 Explanation

Hernandez: I recommend

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

Start practicing free

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

Hernandez: I recommend that staff cars be replaced every four years instead of every three years. Three-year-old cars are still in good result in big savings.

Green: I disagree. Some of our salespeople with big territories wear out their years.

Hernandez: I meant three-year-old cars subjected to

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
5.

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

Answer choices

  1. Correct88% picked this

    by explicitly qualifying a premise used

    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.

  2. Out of Scope: "criticizing"1% picked this

    by criticizing salespeople who wear out their cars in

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

  3. Out of Scope: "disputing accuracy"2% picked this

    by disputing the accuracy of Green's

    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"

  4. Out of Scope: "changing subject"2% picked this

    by changing the subject to the size of

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

  5. Out of Scope: "used phrase ambiguously"6% picked this

    by indicating that Green used a

    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."

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