Logical Reasoning

PT13 · S4 · Q11 Beverage company representative: The plastic rings

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

Beverage company representative: The plastic rings that hold six‐packs of beverage cans together pose a threat to wild animals, which often become entangled in the discarded rings and suffocate as a result.

Conclusion

The threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated once all companies switch to the new plastic rings.

Evidence

The old plastic rings cause wild animals to become entangled and suffocate.

The company plans to switch to rings made of a new plastic that disintegrates after only three days’ exposure to sunlight.

Evaluate

Conditional Reasoning:

The argument assumes that the new rings will indeed prevent suffocation by disintegrating quickly, which would prevent animals from being trapped long enough to suffer suffocation. In other words, the author’s conclusion depends on the idea that wild animals won’t get entangled in the new rings before they disintegrate.

Goal

Look for an answer that supplies the missing link between the rings’ quick disintegration and the elimination of the suffocation risk—namely, that wild animals are unlikely to become entangled in the new rings before they disintegrate.

11.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

  1. None of the new plastic

    Too Narrow

    Answer (A) focuses on a specific disintegration time (not disintegrating after only two days), but the argument’s success does not depend on that precise cutoff. It is only important that the rings disintegrate quickly enough to prevent danger.

    1% picked this

  2. The switchover to the new

    Out of Scope

    Answer (B) addresses the financial impact of the switchover on companies, which is not relevant to whether the suffocation threat is eliminated.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    Wild animals will not become

    Why this is right

    Answer (C) is necessary because the argument relies on the idea that wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure to sunlight to disintegrate. If animals could get entangled before the ring disintegrates, then the danger would not be eliminated.

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

    92% picked this

  4. Use of the old plastic

    Irrelevant

    Answer (D) is off target since whether old rings pose additional threats besides suffocation does not affect the argument’s reasoning about eliminating the suffocation risk by switching to new rings.

    3% picked this

  5. Any wild animal that becomes

    Too Strong

    Answer (E) overstates the case by asserting that any wild animal entangled in the old rings will definitely suffocate. The argument only needs to assume that the old rings present a significant risk, not that every instance results in suffocation.

    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.

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