Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT132 S2 Q22 Explanation

Drug company manager: Our

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

TopicsWeaken

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

Drug company manager: Our newest product is just not selling. One way to save it would be a new marketing campaign. This would not guarantee success, but it is product, so we should try it.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

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

The question
22.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the

Answer choices

  1. Opposite3% picked this

    The drug company has invested heavily in its newest product, and losses due to this product would be

    This sounds like a strengthener. This amplifies the motivation to try to save the new product, which would be a reason for doing the new marketing campaign.

  2. No Impact17% picked this

    Many new products fail whether or not they are supported by

    This hints at a possibility that the marketing campaign is no guarantee of success, since many new products fail even if they are supported by marketing campaigns. However, the author already acknowledged that the marketing campaign is no guarantee, so this doesn't sound like any sort of new objection.

  3. Out of Scope5% picked this

    The drug company should not undertake a new marketing campaign for its newest product if the campaign has

    Out of Scope: no chance to succeed This is a rule about marketing campaigns that have no chance to succeed, but the marketing campaign we're evaluating does have a chance. Since this rule is inapplicable to the marketing campaign we're discussing, this answer has no impact or relevance.

  4. Correct72% picked this

    Undertaking a new marketing campaign would endanger the drug company's overall position by necessitating cutbacks

    Why this is right

    Here's a reason not to do the marketing campaign: it would endanger our overall position.

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

  5. Weak Impact3% picked this

    Consumer demand for the drug company's other products has been strong in the time since the company's

    This could feel like it's saying, "Don't do the marketing campaign ... just let the new product die. After all, the other products are doing well." However, this answer doesn't introduce any negative about the marketing campaign. It's suggesting that we don't necessarily need the positive of saving the new product, but that's not a reason against trying. Just because you're doing well doesn't mean you shouldn't try something that could allow you to do even better.

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