Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT136 S4 Q16 Explanation

Principle: Employees of telemarketing

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

TopicsStrengthen

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

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

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

Application: If an employee of a telemarketing agency has been told by a person the employee has called that he or she does not want to buy the product of a client of the to talk that person into doing so.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

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

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes 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
16.

Which one of the following, if true, justifies the given application of

Answer choices

  1. Weakens, if anything6% picked this

    Any employee of a telemarketing agency is likely to be able to determine whether trying to talk someone into buying the product of a

    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."

  2. Out of Scope: certain4% picked this

    Some employees of telemarketing agencies are unlikely to be certain about whether trying to talk someone into buying the product of a client of

    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".

  3. Correct85% picked this

    Any employee of a telemarketing agency who tries to get someone to buy the product of a client of the agency after the person

    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.

  4. Opposite of our Goal2% picked this

    Some people that an employee of a telemarketing agency calls to ask them to buy the product of a client of the agency will

    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.

  5. Irrelevant Comparison: more likely to refuse4% picked this

    People who are already predisposed to dislike the client of a telemarketing agency are more likely to refuse to buy the product of that

    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".

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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