Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT132 S2 Q26 Explanation

Editorial: It has been suggested

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

TopicsPrinciple-Strengthen

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

Editorial: It has been suggested that private, for-profit companies should be hired to supply clean drinking water to areas of the world where it is unavailable now. But water should not be supplied by private companies. After all, clean water is essential for human is to produce profit, not to promote health.

What this question is testing

Principle-Strengthen

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the reasoning

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Trigger2% picked this

    A private company should not be allowed to supply a commodity that is essential to human health unless that commodity is also

    Government agencies are not discussed in the argument.

  2. Wrong Trigger / Wrong Outcome2% picked this

    If something is essential for human health and private companies are unwilling or unable to supply it, then it should be

    The argument does not indicate whether private companies are unwilling or unable to provide clean drinking water. Furthermore the argument does advocate that government agencies should be should supply clean drinking water.

  3. Wrong Trigger4% picked this

    Drinking water should never be supplied by an organization that is not able to consistently

    The argument does not indicate whether private companies are able to consistently supply, clean, safe water.

  4. Supports a Premise5% picked this

    The mere fact that something actually promotes human health is not sufficient to show that its purpose

    While this may support the premise that the purpose of private companies is not to promote health, but it does not support the conclusion that private companies should not be hired to supply water.

  5. Correct87% picked this

    If something is necessary for human health, then it should be provided by an organization whose primary purpose

    Why this is right

    This builds a bridge between E ? PH being something essential for human health and being provided by an organization whose purpose is to promote human health.

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

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