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
This company's collectibles shall not be classified as toys.
The collectibles are marketed as collector's items, not toys.
If we need a rule to get us from their Evidence to their Conclusion, it should sound something like, .
Or the negative version,
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the government agency's decision?
The tariff classification of an
Why this is right
Following this rule, since these collectibles are marketed as collector's items, not toys, these collectibles should probably be classified as collector's items, not toys. This rule certainly doesn't guarantee the conclusion, because it only says "depend primarily" on how it's marketed, but this answer is still the biggest strengthener of the available choices.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
94% picked this
When importing products, a company
This is a rule that describes what tariff classification a company should seek. It would help to justify that company's attempt to get their collectibles classified as a toy, but this rule doesn't tell us anything about how a government agency should react to that request. We're trying to justify the government agency's decision, so we are only interested in rules that describe how a government agency should classify a tariff.
0% picked this
An object should not be
This rule says typically used ? should not be classified as a toy as a collectible Do we know if these collectibles are typically used as a toy? No, so this rule takes us nowhere. Even if we triggered it, we're looking for an outcome that sounds like "it shouldn't be classified as a toy", whereas this says "it shouldn't be classified as a collectible".
4% picked this
Objects that are developed primarily
This says developed primarily subject to lower to provide amusement ? tariffs Do we know if these collectibles were developed primarily to provide amusement? No, we have no idea (based on how they're marketed, no). Even if we could trigger the rule, the outcome doesn't match the conclusion. This rule concludes "should get lower tariffs", but we're looking for "should not be classified as a toy".
1% picked this
A company should market its
This is another rule about what a company should do. We're trying to justify a decision by a government agency, so we need a rule dictating how the government agency should behave. A rule about how a company should market its products has no power to tell us how a government agency should classify those products.
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.
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.