Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S3 · Q20 The layouts of supermarkets are not accidental

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

Start practicing free

The layouts of supermarkets are not accidental: they are part of a plan designed to make customers walk all the way to the back of the store just to pick up a loaf of bread, passing tempting displays the whole way.

Facts

causal

wanting customers >> layout of markets to go to back of store (bread in back)

pivot + causal

popular items >> alienate customers in the rear

the inconvenience >> shoppers dislike of supermarkets supermarkets

Evaluate

Normally, when Most Supported comes in this substyle of Proposition / Generalization, we hear some sort of Causal Difference-Maker or Pivot-Tension story.

In this case we sort of get both. We're hearing that the same cause, leads to mixed outcomes for the supermarket.

The Good: customers have to pass tempting displays en route to the popular items.

The Bad: customers dislike this / can get alienated by this

Goal

Look for the most provable claim. It'll probably reward us for understanding this tension between two effects of the same cause.

20.

Which one of the following propositions does the passage most precisely illustrate?

  1. Supermarkets should focus on customers

    Unsupported

    The passage doesn't say what supermarkets should focus on. It describes what they do (route shoppers to the back) and what consequence follows (customer alienation). The passage doesn't provide any information comparing shoppers who want to purchase many items and shoppers who want to only buy a few. Yes, a shopper buying many items probably is less likely to be annoyed by the fact that the bread is in the back (since they're taking a trip through the whole store either way), but that's not a good enough reason to focus on that type of customer. There customers who don't buy many items might be much more common, so focusing on anyone besides them could still be a bad business idea.

    1% picked this

  2. Alienation of customers is not

    Too Narrow

    We don't really have any quantitative info with which to assess whether this inconvenient store layout plan is a net negative for the supermarket. Yes, maybe they'll alienate some customers and lose them as potential shoppers. But they might also stimulate other customers to buy more items than they otherwise would (because the customers pass by tempting displays along the way). It's hard to say whether those extra purchases (if any) are outweighed by lost customers (if any).

    19% picked this

  3. Even well-thought-out plans can fail.

    Too Broad

    Out of Scope (well thought out / fail) This is a very weak, provable idea, so it's appealing. Do we know that the plan is well thought out? I mean, there's a thought behind it, but I don't know if that qualifies as well-thought out. After all, we're hearing that this plan backfires a bit by angering customers. Does the plan actually fail? Hard to say. The plan might galvanize some shoppers to buy impulse items from the tempting displays they pass. So even if it annoys some customers, it might still make the store some money.

    10% picked this

  4. Distracting customers is not good

    Bad Description

    Just like (B), we don't really have any quantitative info with which to assess whether this plan of distracting shoppers with temping displays is a net negative for the supermarket. Yes, maybe they'll alienate some customers and lose them as potential shoppers. But they might also stimulate other customers to buy more items than they otherwise would. The plan might lead to enough extra purchases that even if some customers are annoyed, it's still good for business.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    Manipulation of people can have

    Why this is right

    Is this plan manipulating people? That feels a little strong. But, it is "a plan designed to make" customers walk all the way to the back of the store "just to" make them pass tempting displays along the way. So, yes, it's definitely a deliberate attempt to force people to be tempted into buying more products. Manipulation generally means getting other people to act in a certain way that benefits you. This layout definitely qualifies as that. Does it lead to unwelcome consequences? Yes, it's common sense that a business doesn't want to alienate customers or give them reason for disliking the business.

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

    68% 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