Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT140 S3 Q19 Explanation

Auditor: XYZ, a construction company

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

TopicsNecessary 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

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

Auditor: XYZ, a construction company, purchased 20 new trucks 3 years ago, and there is no record of any of those trucks being sold last year. Records indicate, however, that XYZ sold off all of its diesel-powered trucks last year. We can trucks purchased 3 years ago were diesel powered.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
19.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong: all21% picked this

    All of the trucks that XYZ sold last year were

    We know that 100% of the company's diesels were sold last year. The author doesn't need to assume that 100% of what the company sold last year were diesel powered. If we negate this and say, "the company also sold some non-diesel trucks last year", that wouldn't weaken. It wouldn't allow us to argue that some of the trucks from 3 years ago were actually diesel.

  2. Out of Scope: used trucks4% picked this

    XYZ did not purchase any used trucks 3

    The conclusion is only about the 20 new trucks that were purchased 3 years ago. The argument wouldn't care if the company also purchased used trucks, since the conclusion will still be purely about the new trucks.

  3. Out of Scope: other new trucks13% picked this

    XYZ did not purchase any new trucks since it purchased the 20 trucks

    The conclusion is only about the 20 new trucks that were purchased 3 years ago. The argument wouldn't care if the company did or didn't also purchase new trucks since then, because the conclusion will still be purely about the 20 new trucks from 3 years ago.

  4. Correct57% picked this

    None of the 20 trucks was sold before

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, it's saying that "some of the 20 trucks were sold prior to last year". That opens up the door to the Objection scenario we were considering. It's possible that 3 years ago, they bought these 20 trucks, some of which were diesel, and then they sold those diesel trucks 2 years ago. The only reason the author is convinced that none of the 20 were diesel is because the company sold off all its diesel last year but none of the 20 were sold last year. Note: just because we say "none of those 20 trucks were sold last year" doesn't mean "the company still possessed all 20 of those trucks". The author is assuming it does. His argument works if we know that all 20 of those trucks are still possessed. That would guarantee that none of them are diesel, since all the diesel trucks this company possessed were sold last year. This is a weird example of a correct answer on Necessary Assumption that is basically a Sufficient Assumption. And when we negate this, it weakens by creating some doubt -- the negation makes it possible that one of these 20 was diesel and that it was sold before last year. The negation doesn't actually refute the original argument, but a negation does not need to "destroy the argument", as students often say, in order to be the correct answer. We can think, "Which answer, if negated, most weakens", and the winner of that will always be the correct answer on Necessary Assumption.

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

  5. Out of Scope4% picked this

    XYZ no longer owns any trucks that it purchased more than

    Out of Scope: more than 3 years ago This argument only cares about the trucks that were purchased 3 years ago, so there aren't any assumptions needed about trucks purchased more than 3 years ago.

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