Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S2 · Q23 Company president: Almost every really

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

Company president: Almost every really successful product introduced in the last ten years has been launched by a massive television advertising campaign.

Evidence

Almost every really successful Almost all X's product in last 10 yrs was in past time launched by massive TV period used Y ad campaign.

We're using a massive We're using Y TV ad campaign for for Thing A. Vegetaste Burger.

Conclusion

Vegetaste Burger will Thing A will probably be very successful. prob be X

Evaluate

We could call this argument a few different things.

Past = Future Since massive ads have gone with successful products in the past, the massive ad we're doing now will probably go with a successful product.

Correlation = Causation Since almost every successful product was preceded by a major TV ad launch, we can conclude that massive ad launch for Vegetaste will cause it to be successful.

Necessary vs. Sufficient (with Most claims) Most successful products had a massive ad launch. VB has a massive ad launch. So, VS will probably be a successful product.

The flaw, conversationally, could be

Goal

My guess is they probably care most about the 3rd thing, but we'll have to stay flexible as we look at the choices.

Let's look for this structure: Premise 1: Most X's are Y. Premise 2: Thing A is Y. Conclusion: Thing A is probably X.

All the answers are starting with the conclusion, so we'll get rid of them if they're not matching the strength of probably (typically, generally, usually, likely, most, tends to).

If the strength of language is correct, and the conclusion is saying 'probably X', then we'll look for a premise that talks about 'Almost every X' or 'Most X'.

23.

The flawed nature of the company president's argument can most effectively be demonstrated by noting that, by parallel reasoning, we could conclude that

  1. the president of Corbin Corporation

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Nice, a quick elimination right out of the gate. The conclusion is certain of itself "the President's office is not in HQ's building". We want one that's of probably strength.

    1% picked this

  2. Donna has at least ten

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Another quick elimination. The conclusion is certain of itself "D has at least ten years of experience". We want one that's of probably strength. Obviously, if we don't find any answers we like, we'll have to reconsider these and possibly forgive their mismatching conclusions, but we shouldn't invest any time in them on the first pass, since the conclusion is already a mismatch.

    20% picked this

  3. almost all of Acme's employees

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Here's yet another answer with an unpromising conclusion. It definitively concludes a fact: almost all employees oppose merger. The matching conclusion should have "probably" strength.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    Robinson will probably be appointed

    Why this is right

    Okay, we have a "probably" conclusion: R will probably be appointed President of S.U. So we should look for a premise that says "Almost all previous Presidents of S.U." or "Most previous Presidents of S.U.". We have one: almost all previous presidents had Ph.D We just seen a premise saying that "R has a Ph.D", and that's what we get. Original Argument This Answer Almost all X's are Y. Almost all P's had Ph.D Thing A is Y. R has Ph.D. So, thing A prob X. So, R prob P.

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

    52% picked this

  5. the novel Safekeeping will probably

    Valid Word Trap: last ten years

    This one is lacking a second premise, making it seem unlikely to match the original argument. There is sort of a fact built into the conclusion that Safekeeping is a novel published by Peninsula. Here we have a rule that says "Almost every novel published by P.P. has been profitable". To recreate the original flaw, we'd need to say "Safekeeping has been profitable. Thus, Safekeeping is probably a novel published by P.P." Instead, we're saying something valid: "Safekeeping is a novel published by P.P. (implied). Thus, Safekeeping will probably be profitable."

    23% 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