Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S4 · Q8 Factory manager: One reason the automobile

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

Factory manager: One reason the automobile parts this factory produces are expensive is that our manufacturing equipment is outdated and inefficient.

Conclusion

In order to survive, we must refurbish the factory

Evidence

In order to survive, we must make our products more competitively priced. And if we refurbish the factory, our products would be more competitively priced, since one reason that our products are expensive is that our equipment is old and inefficient.

Evaluation

Here's an analogous argument: In order to buy a house, I would need a lot more money. If I win the lottery, I will have a lot more money. Thus, in order to buy a house, I must win the lottery.

Sure refurbishing the factory is one way to make our products more competitively priced, but is it the only way? Do we have to go that route, or are there any other ways to lower our prices? The argument even specifies "one reason our products are expensive", not "the reason our products are expensive".

Goal

Look for an answer describing the move (aka Necessary vs. Sufficient), or something raising the objection that maybe there is another way for us to make our products more competitively priced.

8.

The reasoning in the factory manager's argument is flawed because this argument

  1. fails to recognize that the

    Opposite

    He's not failing to recognize that. He's banking on that possibility. He thinks that by refurbishing their factory, the price of their commodity will change over time. If this answer is saying, "it'll change on its own", that doesn't mean "on its own, it will get low enough that it will become competitively priced".

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    shifts without justification from treating

    Why this is right

    The goal is to get more competitive prices. In the evidence, refurbishing is presented as one way: "if we were to refurbish ..." In the conclusion, refurbishing is presented as the only way: "we must refurbish". This is one way of describing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw.

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

    89% picked this

  3. argues that one thing is

    Bad Conclusion / Premise Match

    Does the conclusion argue that one thing is the cause of another? Nope. The conclusion argues, "In order to achieve X, we must do Y." While that conclusion implies that Y can achieve X, it would be stretching too much to say that the conclusion is claiming that one thing was the cause of another. This answer choice describes the famous Causal Flaw, in which the author arrives at one possible causal explanation of something, even though other possible explanations exist (such as the Reverse Causality possibility posed by this answer).

    6% picked this

  4. recommends a solution to a

    Bad Premise Match

    Does the conclusion recommend a solution to a problem? Yes. Does the evidence fail to consider any possible causes of that problem? No, the author tells us that "old and inefficient" equipment is the cause of our problematic high prices.

    3% picked this

  5. fails to make a definite

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Does this conclusion fail to make a definitive recommendation? Heck, no. The author is incredibly definitive: "we must refurbish!"

    1% 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