Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT131 S2 Q26 Explanation

Commentator: For a free market

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

TopicsSufficient 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

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

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. Thus, despite advertised prices and written estimates available repair industry does not constitute a properly functioning free market.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

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

The question
26.

The conclusion of the commentator's argument follows logically if which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Too Weak11% picked this

    People do not usually shop for auto repairs but instead take their autos to their regular repair

    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.

  2. Correct65% picked this

    Some persons who are shopping for auto repairs cannot determine what these

    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.

  3. Too Weak8% picked this

    Not all auto repair shops give customers

    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.

  4. Out of Scope8% picked this

    Many auto repair shops charge more for auto repairs than these

    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.

  5. Out of Scope8% picked this

    Because it is not regulated, the auto repair industry does not

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

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