Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S4 · Q14 Obviously, entrepreneurial ability

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

Obviously, entrepreneurial ability is needed to start a successful company.

Conclusion (Hence)

The lack of managerial skills and the lack of entrepreneurial ability can each inhibit the development of successful companies.

Evidence

Entrepreneurial ability is obviously needed to start a successful company.

Intermediate Conclusion

But even if you succeed in starting a company, you can still fail for lack of managerial skills.

Evidence (for instance)

You might not adequately analyze market trends, which leads to a failure to manage company growth.

Evaluate

There are lot of keywords here potentially helping us / confusing us:

Obviously = opinion. Opinions are often Conclusions. But the first sentence isn't supported by any idea, so we wouldn't call it a conclusion.

Yet = pivot. Pivots frequently introduce the main conclusion on Role and Main Conclusion questions. The idea after Yet does get supported, which we can tell from the fact that it's followed by ...

For instance = support indicator.

consequently = This can indicate a conclusion or the result of a cause/effect relationship. In this sentence, it appears to be a causal use of consequently, not a reasoning move.

Hence = conclusion indicator.

Goal

We're being asked about a claim that comes right before the word "Hence", so we're guaranteed that this claim plays a supporting role.

Other than that, we don't need to be too precise with our prediction.

14.

The proposition that certain entrepreneurs fail in managing company growth plays which one of the following roles in the argument above?

  1. It is the main conclusion

    Wrong Role

    The main conclusion is the final claim of the paragraph. A claim could never be the main conclusion if it's followed by the word "Hence", because the "hence" indicates that a conclusion is being drawn on top of that.

    2% picked this

  2. It is presented as an

    Not an Example of Main Conclusion

    Is this argument seeking to explain a phenomenon? Not really. That language means "to offer a causal explanation for something that happened / is happening". This argument is only trying to demonstrate that each of two factors has the power to thwart the successful development of a company. If we stretched this answer to fit, we'd say the phenomenon the author seeks to explain is that of "a company failing due to lack of managerial skills or lack of entrepreneurial ability". An example of that phenomenon would be a specific company that failed due to one of these things. The claim we're being asked about certainly isn't providing a specific case study in failure. Our claim is giving an example of how someone's managerial skills could be lacking. But the argument doesn't seek to explain "how someone's managerial skills could be lacking".

    7% picked this

  3. It is meant as an

    Wrong Role

    This portrays our claim as neutral Background info, but we know this claim plays a supporting role. After all, it's followed by the word Hence. Conclusion indicators such as So, Thus, Hence, Therefore always indicate that the claim immediately before them is providing some support.

    1% picked this

  4. It is a premise that

    Not Directly

    The claim we're being asked about exists in a sentence that is prefaced by the phrase For instance. "For instance / for example" always indicate that sentence we're now reading is supporting the sentence we just read. We know the 3rd sentence is directly supporting the 2nd sentence, and the 2nd sentence is directly supporting the 4th sentence (the main conclusion).

    23% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is an example that

    Why this is right

    The claim we're being asked about exists in a sentence that is prefaced by the phrase For instance. "For instance / for example" always indicate that sentence we're now reading is an example that supports the previous claim. We know the 3rd sentence is offering an example to support the 2nd sentence. 2nd: many entrepreneurs fail for lack of managerial skills 3rd: for example, they can fail because they lack the managerial skills to adequately manage company growth. Is the 2nd sentence a premise intended to support the argument's main conclusion directly? Yes. The final sentence (the main conclusion) is directly supported by the first two sentences. Sentence 1 establishes that a lack of entrepreneurial skills can tank a business. Sentence 2 establishes that lack of managerial skills can also do so. The 2nd sentence is an Intermediate Conclusion, aka a Subsidiary Conclusion, aka a Supported Premise.

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

    68% 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