Beverage company representative: The plastic rings

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsNecessary Assumption

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

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

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. Following our lead, all beverage companies will soon use only those rings consisting of a new plastic that disintegrates after threat of suffocation that plastic rings pose to wild animals will be eliminated.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

11.

The argument depends on which one of the

Answer choices

Too Narrow0% picked this
None of the new plastic rings can disintegrate after only two days’
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.
0%
Out of Scope2% picked this
The switchover to the new plastic rings can be completed without causing significant financial hardship
Answer (B) addresses the financial impact of the switchover on companies, which is not relevant to whether the suffocation threat is eliminated.
2%
Correct91% picked this
Wild animals will not become entangled in the new plastic rings before the rings have had sufficient exposure
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.
91%
Irrelevant3% picked this
Use of the old plastic rings poses no substantial threat to wild animals other than
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%
Too Strong3% picked this
Any wild animal that becomes entangled in the old plastic rings will suffocate
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.
3%

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