Logical Reasoning

PT13 · S2 · Q9 In a mature tourist market

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

In a mature tourist market such as Bellaria there are only two ways hotel owners can increase profits: by building more rooms or by improving what is already there.

Conclusion (it follows that)

Hotel owners cannot increase their profits in Bellaria.

Evidence

In a mature-tourist market such as Bellaria, there are only two ways hotel owners can increase profits: by building more rooms or by improving what is already there.

Rigid land-use laws in Bellaria rule out construction of new hotels or any expansion of hotel capacity.

Evaluate

The blank is prefaced by a Support Indicator, "since", so we know we're trying to supply a missing premise.

The argument is basically saying

What is missing in there? The argument needs to establish that these people won't be able to do either of the two things..

Here, those two things were 1. build more rooms 2. improve what's there

Did the evidence establish that they can't build more rooms and can't improve what's there?

It did half of that. It showed that they can't build more rooms.

Thus, the missing information that would logically complete the argument must indicate that improving existing facilities is not an option.

Goal

Let's find an answer that suggests why improving what is already there is not a feasible option for increasing profits in Bellaria.

Which one of the following logically completes the argument?

are already operating at an
No Impact
This has nothing to do with whether or not they can boost profits by improving what is already there. High occupancy does not preclude the possibility of charging more for improved facilities.
22% picked this
could not have been sited
No Impact
This does not address whether they can boost profits by improving what's already there. This feels more about the past than about what could be done in the future.
14% picked this
have to contend with upward
No Impact
This answer does kinda sound like a way to argue that the hotels can't be profitable, but it has nothing to do with Logically Completing the argument.. The author told us there were two ways to potentially boost profits, but his evidence only deals with one of the ways. This answer choice doesn't help us "close the loop" on the second option.
1% picked this
Correct
already provide a level of
Why this is right
This ends up being our best available option at "they can't boost profits by improving what they have". "Improving what they have" would presumably mean making their hotels even fancier, and that would boost profits only if they started charging more. This choice indicates that hotels cannot charge more for further improvements, as they are already at the pricing limit.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
have shifted from serving mainly
No Impact
This talks about a shift in the client base but does not address whether the hotels could boost profits by improving what they have.
0% 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