Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S2 · Q13 Buying elaborate screensavers-programs

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

Buying elaborate screensavers–programs that put moving images on a computer monitor to prevent damage–can cost a company far more in employee time than it saves in electricity and monitor protection.

Conclusion

Buying elaborate screensavers can cost a company far more in employee time than it saves in electricity and monitor protection.

Evidence

Employees can't resist spending time playing with screensavers that flash interesting graphics across their screens.

Evaluate

We need to extrapolate a Principle from this situation/argument.

A company buys a screensaver as a way to save money in the long run (because screensavers help protect their equipment from getting damaged), but the purchase sort of backfires when it turns out that employees start wasting time zoning out, watching the cool screensaver.

So the abstract elements here seem to be, .

Goal

Let's look for something that sounds like cautionary advice: .

13.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle illustrated above?

A school that chooses textbooks
Bad Match: based on student preference
The company wasn't buying the screensaver based on employee preferences. The screensaver just had the unanticipated backfire of distracting their employees.
3% picked this
An energy-efficient insulation system may
Bad Match: net gain
This sounds like the opposite of a cautionary warning. This is more like an endorsement that doing X will in the long run be a Net Gain.
1% picked this
The time that it takes
Weak Match
This has some element of "You think you're getting a net gain by doing X (ordering a pizza for delivery), but in the end you're getting a net loss (because it takes longer for it to arrive than it does to cook a complete dinner". But it's not really clear this would be a net loss. Yes, you might have to wait longer for the pizza to show up than if you just cooked yourself a meal, but you can still be productive during that time you're waiting for the pizza to show up (and maybe you really want pizza). The fact that there is more waiting time to eat isn't a clear Net Loss.
5% picked this
Correct
A complicated hotel security system
Why this is right
Here, the wording is clearly indicating a Net Loss: costs more in X than it saves in Y The screensaver seemed like a good idea, but it costs more in wasted employee time than it saves in protecting monitors from damage. The complicated security system seemed like a good idea, but it costs more in customer frustration than it saves in losses by theft.
Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
88% picked this
An electronic keyboard may be
Bad Match: head to head comparison
This is evaluating a choice between a keyboard and a piano. The original is just talking about whether buying one thing would be a net gain or net loss, not comparing it to a different purchasing option. Both the original and the correct answer are comparing the status quo to buying a new thing: - better off buying a screensaver or not? - better off buying a security system or not? This is comparing which purchase, X or Y, would have the better net benefit: - better off buying a keyboard or a piano?
2% 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