Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q12 West: Of our company's three quality

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

West: Of our company's three quality control inspectors, Haynes is clearly the worst.

West's Conclusion

Haynes is the worst of our three quality control inspectors.

West's Evidence

Half of the appliances that were returned to us last year for being defective were inspected by Haynes.

Young's Response

Yeah, but Haynes does way more than half of the appliances.

Evaluate

This is a response that's talking about proportionality.

All other things being equal, if all three quality control inspectors were equally good at their jobs, then they would each be responsible for 33.3% of the items returned because of defects. They would always be tied in terms of, .

However, let's say they are equally good, but Haynes inspects 50% of the items, Rocco does 25%, and T-Bone does 25%. If it turns out that Haynes is , is it fair for Rocco and T-bone to tease him?

No, because of course Haynes will have the most items returned. He's inspected twice as many items as those rascals, so he has way more items out there in the world, with his name on it as the quality control inspector.

If Haynes inspects 50% of the items, and he's equally good as the other two, then we would expect 50% of the returned items to be from Haynes.

If someone does better than their percent, it shows they're better than average.

If Rocco inspects 25% of the items but is only responsible for 20% of the returned items, that means that Rocco is outperforming others.

Goal

Young responds by Introducing a New Consideration, i.e. bringing up important information that makes us see the first person's evidence in a different light.

When we were assuming the work was divided 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 among the three inspectors, we would have assumed that each inspector would have inspected 1/3 of the items that got returned.

Since Haynes inspected 1/2 of the items returned, he looks like he's doing worse than his fair share. But Young is saying, actually he's doing better than his fair share.

He inspects like more than 65% of these items, and he's only responsible for 50% of the returned items.

12.

Young responds to West's argument by

  1. contending that the argument presupposes

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Circular Argument flaw: - conclusion restates the evidence - argument assumes the truth of the conclusion Young is not saying that West's argument was circular. He's just saying, "You have to know the initial reference point here. Haynes inspects way more items than the other two inspectors do."

    4% picked this

  2. questioning the relevance of West's

    Relevance vs. Accuracy

    Young doesn't question the relevance of the conclusion, just the accuracy. She is suggesting to West that Haynes is actually doing better than the other two, since he's responsible for inspecting way more than half the items, and only half the items returned went through him.

    12% picked this

  3. disputing the accuracy of one

    Doesn't Dispute Premise

    In almost all these 2-Speaker Method questions they have this trap answer. We know that on LSAT, people almost never deny the truth of a premise. They challenge assumptions. They provide other information that re-casts that premise in a new light. But they don't say "No" to a premise. Young does not dispute that half of the returned items were inspected by Haynes.

    28% picked this

  4. arguing for a less extreme

    Too Weak

    Young does not actually explicitly conclude anything. The new context she presents would lead someone mathematically to infer that Haynes is actually outperforming his other inspectors. If he's inspecting 65% of the items but is only responsible for 50% of the returned items, he's doing better than average. So Young's response is not suggesting a less extreme version. It would be suggesting a contradictory version: Haynes is definitely not the worst of the 3 (he may even be the best)

    7% picked this

  5. Correct

    denying one of the argument's

    Why this is right

    In order for West to think it's bad that Haynes is responsible for 50% of the returned items, he has to be assuming that Haynes inspected less than 50% of the original items that got sold. Presumably, West is assuming that because there are three quality control inspectors, they're each responsible for about 33.3% of the appliances sold. You need to assume that Haynes is inspecting less than 50% of the items in order to see that 50% of the returned items went through him and think, "He seems disproportionately bad. He's clearly the worst!" Young says that Haynes is inspecting way more than 50% of the items, so she is denying the assumption that Haynes is inspecting less than 50% of the items.

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

    50% 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