Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S2 · Q26 Commentator: For a free market

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

Commentator: For a free market to function properly, each prospective buyer of an item must be able to contact a large number of independent prospective sellers and compare the prices charged for the item to what the item is worth.

Evidence

For a free market to FP → all buyers can contact function properly, each sellers / comp prices prospective buyer of to what item is worth an item must be able to contact a large number of independent prospective sellers and compare the prices charged for the item to what the item is worth.

Conclusion

The auto repair ~FP industry does not constitute a properly functioning free market.

Evaluate

Since the conclusion is saying the trigger is not true, we must be trying to use this rule in its contrapositive form:

At least one buyer can't → ~FP contact sellers / comp prices

So we need the answer to give us this trigger idea.

26.

The conclusion of the commentator's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. People do not usually shop

    Too Weak

    That people do not usually shop for auto repairs does not imply that they are unable to compare the prices charged for those repairs to what the repairs are worth.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    Some persons who are shopping

    Why this is right

    This establishes that there are some prospective buyers who cannot contact sellers and compare their prices to what an item is worth. But it does it in a sneaky way. For all we know, the prospective buyer is able to contact sellers and get prices for a given auto repair, but since they don't know what these repairs are worth, there's no way for them to compare the sellers' prices to what the "item" is worth. (It's also obnoxious that the rule was stated in terms of "items", which are goods, whereas this answer switches to talking about "services")

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

    67% picked this

  3. Not all auto repair shops

    Too Weak

    This leaves open the possibility that prospective buyers are able to contact a large number of repair shops and compare prices charged to what the item is worth.

    7% picked this

  4. Many auto repair shops charge

    Out of Scope

    That many auto repair shops charge more for repairs than these repairs are worth is not relevant to whether prospective buyers are able to compare the price charged to what the repairs are worth.

    7% picked this

  5. Because it is not regulated,

    Out of Scope

    Standardized prices for auto repairs are not relevant to whether those prices can be compared to what those repairs are worth.

    8% 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