Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q15 Ninety percent of recent car buyers

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

Ninety percent of recent car buyers say safety was an important factor in their purchase.

Conclusion (Thus)

These other buyers were mistaken in saying that safety was important to them. rephrase: safety was not important to these buyers

Evidence

They relied on advertisements and promotional materials, rather than consulting objective sources of vehicle safety information.

Evaluate / Goal

We know we need to prove that "safety was not important" to a group of buyers who didn't consult objective sources of vehicle safety info; they relied on ads and promo materials.

So there are two Missing Link style answers we could anticipate:

or

.

15.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Someone who claims that safety

    Too Weak Bad Conclusion Match

    We're almost never going to pick weakly worded answers on Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. We need to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that "safety was not important". This answer is saying, "Safety wasn't necessarily the most important".

    3% picked this

  2. Advertisements and promotional materials sometimes

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to prove that "safety was not important", and the evidence didn't provide any such rule like "If xyz is true, then safety is not important" that would allow us to derive such a conclusion. So the correct answer must be that sort of rule, and this answer doesn't even have language like whether "safety was important".

    6% picked this

  3. Recent car buyers do not

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to prove that "safety was not important", and this answer doesn't even have language like whether "safety was important", so there's no way to combine it with our evidence and derive the language "safety was not important".

    1% picked this

  4. Most consumers are aware that

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to prove that "safety was not important", and this answer doesn't even have language like whether "safety was important", so there's no way to combine it with our evidence and derive the language "safety was not important".

    12% picked this

  5. Correct

    Anyone to whom safety is

    Why this is right

    This is the only answer choice that provides a rule (i.e. a proving mechanism) that outputs the language of the conclusion: safety was not an important factor. Like many, if not most, correct answers on Sufficient Assumption, it's written in contrapositive form. If safety is an important ? then consult an factor in purchasing car objective source The contrapositive will put our conclusion language on the right side of the arrow, where we need it. If didn't consult ? safety was not imp an objective source factor in buying car We know "these other buyers" didn't consult an objective source of vehicle safety info before making their purchase (they just relied on ads and promo materials), and so according to this rule we can logically derive that "safety was not an important factor to them".

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

    78% 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