Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT134 S3 Q21 Explanation

Economics professor: Marty's Pizza

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

Economics professor: 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 to accept these coupons, even though they were redeemed by all other local Checkers’s motive in refusing to accept the coupons was simply to hurt Marty’s Pizza.

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
21.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the economics professor’s conclusion to

Answer choices

  1. Correct69% picked this

    Any company that refuses to accept coupons issued by a competitor when doing so would satisfy some of the company's potential customers is motivated

    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.

  2. Reversal19% picked this

    Any company that wishes to hurt a competitor by refusing to accept coupons issued by that competitor will refuse to accept them even when

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

  3. Too Weak3% picked this

    At least one company has refused to accept coupons issued by its major local competitor simply in order to hurt that competitor, even though

    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.

  4. Negation8% picked this

    Any company that accepts its major competitor's coupons helps its competitor by doing so, even if it also satisfies its

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

  5. Out of Scope1% picked this

    If accepting coupons issued by a competitor would not enable a company to satisfy its actual or potential customers, then that company's refusal to

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

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