Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT146 S1 Q6 Explanation

Mario: I see that the only rug store

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

TopicsAgree/Disagree

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Mario: I see that the only rug store in Glendale has gone out of business. Evidently there’s little demand for rugs in Glendale. So if you’re planning to open would be one product to avoid.

Renate: It’s true that the store is gone, but its closing had little to do with the product it sold. All this means is that the is now wide open.

What this question is testing

Agree/Disagree

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
6.

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

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: inferior quality0% picked this

    the rug store in Glendale sold rugs of

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

  2. Correct91% picked this

    it is a good idea to open a rug store

    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.

  3. Unsupported/Extreme Disagree Position4% picked this

    it is possible to determine the market for rugs

    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. Out of Scope: other business failures0% picked this

    any other stores have gone out of business

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

  5. Unsupported/Extreme Disagree Position5% picked this

    rug stores can close because of insufficient demand

    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.

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