Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S4 · Q19 Employee: The company I work for

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

Employee: The company I work for has installed website filtering software that blocks access to non-related websites.

Conclusion (implied)

It's dumb that my company is installing software that blocks access to non-related websites.

Evidence

They say it's to prevent distractions, but windows and decorations in an office can also distract, and no one is saying people do their best work in a barren, windowless room.

Evaluate

This argument does not seem like a good contender for turning into some Algebraic Recipe. It doesn't have any conditional logic or repeating symbols. It doesn't even have an explicit conclusion!

Our author is rejecting a new policy and telling us that what the stated reason for that policy is (distractions prevent employees from their best work). The argument then attempts to show that this is hypocritical, by pointing to something else that would seem to qualify under that same rationale but somehow isn't thought of that way.

Goal

Let's look for something like - they're planning to do X - they say it's because of rationale Y - but Y would apply to Z also, and no one is trying to apply Y in that situation.

(Even though I'm using algebra loosely here, it's more about the gist of finding a rebuttal argument that feels like, )

19.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the employee's argument?

  1. Some people advocate moderation in

    No Rationale for Disputed Action

    This author is trying to rebut someone's suggested policy / action. However, the argument never cites what rationale is being used to justify that policy. We need that ingredient so that the author can argue, "Well then how come you're not applying that same rationale to this other situation where it would also seemingly apply?"

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Activists are calling for an

    Why this is right

    We can match this up. The author is rebutting a course of action by saying that the rationale offered for that action is apparently being inconsistently applied, since some other situation also qualifies for that rationale and yet we don't seem to be applying that rationale in that other situation. - they're planning to do X They want to ban the electronic device - they say it's because of rationale Y It's because prolonged exposure to the device causes cancer. - but Y would apply to Z also, and no one is trying to apply Y in that situation. Other chemicals probably cause cancer when administered in high doses, and no one is saying we should ban all these chemicals for that reason.

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

    86% picked this

  3. Acme expects that approximately 1,000

    No Action / No Rationale

    In the original argument, the author is trying to rebut someone's suggested policy / action. However, this argument does not have such a thing. A bunch of people are separately planning to retire over the course of a year. Further more, the argument never cites what rationale is being used to justify that policy. We need that ingredient so that the author can argue, "Well then how come you're not applying that same rationale to this other situation where it would also seemingly apply?"

    2% picked this

  4. In many creative writing classes,

    Bad Objection Match

    This argument is rebutting someone's rationale "if not engaging won't sell well". But to match the original argument, this should be saying, "Well what about this other situation? This has similar characteristics to creative writing, and no one says (in this other situation) that if it's not engaging it won't sell well?" Instead, this rebuttal, if we can even call it that, is simply saying that "Yes, having engaging characters may be necessary to sell well. But it's not sufficient to sell well."

    5% picked this

  5. In the movie industry, a

    Bad Objection Match

    This argument is rebutting someone's rationale that "success is determined by profit relative to cost". But to match the original argument, this should be saying, "Well what about this other situation? This other situation has similar characteristics to films, and no one says (in this other situation) that we should judge success as profit relative to cost." Instead, this rebuttal stays within the world of film, rather than offering an analogous situation where the same rationale would potentially apply.

    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