Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S3 · Q21 Economics professor: Marty's Pizza

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

Economics professor: Marty’s Pizza and Checkers Pizza are the two major pizza parlors in our town.

Evidence

Marty’s Pizza and Checkers Pizza are the two major pizza parlors in our town.

Marty’s sold coupon books including coupons good for one large plain pizza at any local pizza parlor, at Marty’s expense.

But Checkers refused ~AC to accept these coupons, even though they were redeemed by all other local pizza parlors.

Accepting them [the AC → SPC coupons] would have cost Checkers nothing and would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books.

Conclusion

This shows that HMP Checkers’s motive in refusing to accept the coupons was simply to hurt Marty’s Pizza.

Evaluate

The argument ~AC + (AC → SPC) → HMP assumes that if Checkers Pizza chooses to not accept coupons issued by Marty’s Pizza, even though accepting those coupons would satisfy some of

21.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the economics professor's conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. Correct

    Any company that refuses to

    Why this is right

    This bridges the ~AC + (AC ? SPC) ? HMP gap between the action taken by Checkers Pizza [to not accept a competitor's coupons] and a desire to hurt Marty’s Pizza.

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

    70% picked this

  2. Any company that wishes to

    Reversal

    This reverses HMP ? ~AC + (AC ? SPC) the relationship between the action taken by Checkers Pizza and the desire to hurt Marty’s Pizza.

    19% picked this

  3. At least one company has

    Too Weak

    This does not necessarily apply to the town with Marty’s Pizza and Checkers Pizza and so does not prove that the action taken by Checkers Pizza was meant to hurt Marty’s Pizza.

    3% picked this

  4. Any company that accepts its

    Negation

    This loosely negates AC ? ~H the logic between accepting a competitor’s coupon and not harming the competitor.

    7% picked this

  5. If accepting coupons issued by

    Out of Scope

    This is about the motivation to satisfy customers, while the argument is about the motivation to hurt a competitor.

    1% 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