Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT13 S4 Q12 Explanation

Beverage company representative: The plastic rings

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

TopicsWeaken

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

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

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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

The question
12.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the

Answer choices

  1. No Impact1% picked this

    The switchover to the new plastic rings will take at least two more

    We don't care how long the switchover takes. We just care if the suffocation threat will be eliminated after the switchover is complete.

  2. Correct69% picked this

    After the beverage companies have switched over to the new plastic rings, a substantial number of the old plastic rings will persist

    Why this is right

    This gives us a way to argue that even once we've switched over to the new rings, the threat of suffocation from plastic rings will persist, since the animals could still suffocate on the old rings that are still out there in the environment.

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

  3. No Impact0% picked this

    The new plastic rings are slightly less expensive than the

    The cost comparison between the new and old rings doesn't address the elimination of the suffocation threat.

  4. No Impact2% picked this

    The new plastic rings rarely disintegrate during shipping of beverage six-packs because most trucks that transport canned beverages

    This option relates only to the logistics of shipping and does not address the environmental impact on animal suffocation.

  5. No Impact28% picked this

    The new plastic rings disintegrate into substances that are harmful to aquatic animals when ingested in

    While harmful substances from disintegrated rings pose environmental concerns, the conclusion is only about suffocation. Although this option introduces a new problem, it doesn't directly undermine the conclusion about suffocation.

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