Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S4 · Q16 Principle: Employees of telemarketing

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

Principle: Employees of telemarketing agencies should never do anything that predisposes people to dislike the agencies' clients.

Principle

predisposes people to → telemarketing employee dislike agencies' clients should never do it

Application

Telemarketing employees should never try to talk a person into buying a client's product, if the person has already told them they don't want the product.

Evaluate

In (almost) all of these Strengthen-Application questions, the application is concluding the outcome of the Principle. What's missing is clearly establishing the trigger.

The application is attempting to conclude that a telemarketing employee should not do something (keep pushing someone to buy someone, after they've already said they don't want it).

In order to trigger this principle, we need to establish that an action would .

Goal

So we need to hear that is an action that would "predispose someone to dislike that client".

16.

Which one of the following, if true, justifies the given application of the principle above?

Any employee of a telemarketing
Weakens, if anything
The application of the principle is assuming that trying to talk someone into buying X's product, even after they've said "no thanks", is going to engender animosity (predispose someone to dislike). That's why the application is thinking, "telemarketers should not do this". This answer, meanwhile, is saying, "Well .... it's okay if they do it. They can tell which customers are likely to get mad and start hating the client, which ones aren't. Let's just trust the telemarketers' judgment about whom to do this or not do this to."
6% picked this
Some employees of telemarketing agencies
Out of Scope: certain
The principle has nothing to do with whether or not the employees are certain / uncertain that pushing a customer will engender animosity. The language of the principle is just, "if it will engender animosity towards the client, then telemarketers should never do it".
4% picked this
Correct
Any employee of a telemarketing
Why this is right
This establishes that "trying to get someone to buy a client's product after they've already said no thanks will predispose the person to dislike the client". Anything that predisposes someone to dislike the client should never be done, so the application is correct. If a telemarketer has been told by someone that they don't want a client's product, the telemarketer should not try to get them to buy the product.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
85% picked this
Some people that an employee
Opposite of our Goal
In order to apply this principle, we need to establish that trying to talk someone into buying a client's product will predispose people to dislike that client. This answer is talking about people who aren't predisposed to dislike.
2% picked this
People who are already predisposed
Irrelevant Comparison: more likely to refuse
In order to apply this principle, we need to establish that trying to talk someone into buying a client's product will predispose people to dislike that client. This answer is talking about people who are already predisposed to dislike, and it doesn't connect predisposed to dislike to "trying to talk someone who's already refused into buying a client's product".
4% 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