Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S4 · Q11 University spokesperson: Most of the

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

University spokesperson: Most of the students surveyed at the university said they would prefer that the current food vendor be replaced with a different food vendor next year.

Conclusion (should)

We should rehire Hall Dining next year.

Evidence (since)

Other things being equal, we should adhere to the preferences of the majority of students.

Most students surveyed said they would prefer that the current food vendor be replaced with a different food vendor next year.

The only alternative to the current vendor is Hall Dining, which actually was the university's food vendor until this previous year.

Evaluate

Given that ... we're going to go with what most students want and that ... most students want to bail from the current vendor and that ... Hall Dining is the only alternative vendor, How could we still say ... we should not rehire Hall Dining next year?

This argument is pretty tough to fight, given the constraints put on us by the premises. If we're following what most students want (and if we assume the survey is representative of that), then we should switch vendors. And since Hall Dining is our only option for switching, then we would switch to Hall Dining.

But, there was something weird about learning that Hall Dining was the old vendor for this university. If they were the vendor up until last year, it makes us wonder why we switched away from them a year ago.

Did the prices changes? Was the university less happy about the deal they were getting? Or were the students unhappy with the quality of food or service they were getting? If Hall Dining was bad enough to bail from a year ago, does it really make sense to go back to it?

Goal

It's hard to know how to phrase our objection, but we need a way to argue that we shouldn't switch back to our old vendor. We'll probably either say the survey is problematic or that something would be different (in a worse way) if we were to revert back to having Hall Dining as our food vendor.

11.

The spokesperson's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Correct
overlooks the possibility that the
Why this is right
When Flaw answer choices begin with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, then, assuming that the author did fail to address this, we can ask ourselves, "Does this sound like a weakening Objection?" Could it hurt this argument if we said that the students surveyed didn't realize when they voted for a new vendor that the only option was reverting back to the vendor they had bailed from the previous year? Yes, potentially. If you as a student were asked whether you'd rather stick with the current food vendor or make a switch, you're presumably thinking about the mediocre quality of your current dining hall food and judging, "I'd rather take my chances on something new than keep eating what we've had this year". You're comparing what you know of this year's food to the unknowable of "some other vendor". That mental calculation takes on a very different contour if you're comparing what you know of this year's food to what you know of the previous year's food. Naturally, it's possible that students loved the previous year's food from Hall Dining and that it was the university's decision to terminate that relationship before. This answer doesn't prove that students would have changed their vote from "switch vendors" to "stick with current vendor". But it does open up a big can of doubt, and that's enough to weaken an argument. If all the other answers fail us, then "creating some doubt" might still be our best objection.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
relies on a sample that
Too Strong: likely
This refers to the famous Sampling flaw, but we have no reason to trust or distrust this sample. If we switched this answer to say, "relies on a sample that is potentially unrepresentative", then it would be fine. Since the argument has not provided us with any assurances that this sample is large / diverse / representative, it's certainly fair for us to worry about the sample. But it isn't fair for us to say "it's more likely than not to be unrepresentative". We would need some detail about it that is sketchy (like they only asked students in upper level physics classes) in order to say that it's probably skewed.
4% picked this
overlooks the possibility that student
Doesn't Overlook
As we said with (A), we would ask ourselves "Does this answer weaken the argument?", but only if it's accurate to say the author failed to consider this possibility. Here, it's not fair to say the author overlooked other possible factors. By saying, "other things being equal, students' preferences should be adhered to", the author is acknowledging that other factors could affect our decision.
8% picked this
overlooks the possibility that there
Not an Objection / Not Overlooked
We might debate whether the author really overlooks this possibility. By saying that "most students surveyed said they would prefer bailing from the current food vendor", the author has allowed for the possibility that some students would prefer keeping the current food vendor. Whether the author overlooked it or not, the idea would not weaken the argument. The author is simply saying in one of her premises that we should adhere to the preferences of the majority of students. There might be disagreement among students, but if there's still a majority opinion, then that disagreement is irrelevant to the logic here.
2% picked this
argues that a certain action
Too Strong: merely
The conclusion does argue that a certain action ought to be undertaken (we should rehire Hall Dining next year). But is the only premise a claim that "it would be popular"? No. First of all, there isn't any premise that says "rehiring Hall Dining would be popular". We only know that "replacing the current food vendor would be popular (a majority of students would approve)". The reason the author's conclusion isn't "we should hire a different vendor next year" and instead is "we should rehire Hall Dining next year" is because of the other premise that tells us that Hall Dining is our only alternative vendor option.
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.

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