Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S1 · Q6 Mario: I see that the only rug store

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

Mario: I see that the only rug store in Glendale has gone out of business.

Mario's Claims

1. The only rug store in Glendale has gone out of business.

2. There's little demand for rugs in Glendale.

3. People planning to open a new business in Glendale should avoid going into the rug-selling business.

Renate's Response?

1. Did Renate argue ? That would mean he's either arguing that the store that went out of business wasn't the only rug store in Glendale, or he's arguing that the only rug store in Glendale didn't go out of business..

He definitely agrees the store is gone. And he never suggests that there is some other rug store still in existence in Glendale. In fact by saying "the market is wide open", he seems to be implying that there's currently no rug store in Glendale. So, if anything, Renate agrees with this claim.

2. Did Renate argue, "there much demand for rugs in Glendale?"

Somewhat. By saying , he seems to be affirming that there is demand for rugs in Glendale. But more precisely he's just saying that "demand for rugs" was not a primary causal factor in the store's closing.

3. Did Renate argue, It wasn't lack of demand for rugs that closed down that store. And now that the store is closed, the next rug store that opens up in Glendale will be the only game in town! The market is up for grabs to the first rug retailer that moves in."

Goal

Let's look for something dealing with the content of Mario's 3rd claim, whether it would be a good/bad idea to open up a rug store in Glendale right now.

6.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Mario and Renate disagree over whether

  1. the rug store in Glendale

    Out of Scope: inferior quality

    We couldn't infer either speaker Agreeing or Disagreeing with this, since neither party addressed the quality of rugs sold at this store.

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    it is a good idea

    Why this is right

    This matches our prediction. We can infer the Agree position from Renate, since he's saying "lack of demand wasn't the problem / now that the store is gone, the next rug store that opens in Glendale will own that market". And we can infer the Disagree position from Mario, since he says, "If you're planning to open a new business in Glendale, you should avoid making it a rug store."

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

    91% picked this

  3. it is possible to determine

    Unsupported/Extreme Disagree Position

    Both speakers have an opinion on the market for rugs in Glendale, so they they would presumably agree that it's possible to gauge the market for rugs in Glendale. We can't infer from either speaker that they believe, "it is impossible to determine the market for rugs in Glendale".

    4% picked this

  4. any other stores have gone

    Out of Scope: other business failures

    Neither speaker addresses the topic of whether other stores have also gone out of business.

    0% picked this

  5. rug stores can close because

    Unsupported/Extreme Disagree Position

    We can't infer from either speaker that they believe, "rug stores can never close because of insufficient demand for rugs". Renate is saying that this store didn't close because of insufficient demand, not that no store ever can close because of insufficient demand.

    5% picked this

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