Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S3 · Q11 Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling

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

Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose.

Conclusion

The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose.

Evidence

The only labels currently required by law indicate the age range a toy is intended for (e.g., "three and up" for choking hazards).

Parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion / Role, we prime our brain for "upside down arguments" where we hear the conclusion before we hear the support.

Since the first sentence feels like an author Opinion ("should"), we listen to hear if it's supported by what follows, in which case it would be the main conclusion!

Indeed, the subsequent discussion of current age-range labels and the potential of explicit safety information is offered as support for that recommendation.

Goal

We're being asked about the first sentence, so we would want an answer that says "main conclusion" or something equivalent.

11.

The statement that the law should require explicit safety labels on toys serves which one of the following functions in the consumer advocate’s argument?

  1. It is a general principle

    Bad Description

    This describes a premise, something 'supporting' the conclusion. We want an answer to say it's the actual conclusion.

    6% picked this

  2. It is a proposed compromise

    Bad Description

    There are no two conflicting goals in this argument and no compromise being struck. The advocate argues straightforwardly for one change to the law. Nothing in the stimulus identifies competing aims or suggests the recommendation is splitting any difference.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is the conclusion of

    Why this is right

    It's an opinion from our author and the rest of the paragraph provides support for this recommendation.

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

    90% picked this

  4. It is evidence that must

    Bad Description

    The author is making this statement and arguing on its behalf, not trying to refute it.

    1% picked this

  5. It is a particular instance

    Bad Description

    This certainly doesn't sound like "main conclusion". It sounds like a subsidiary ingredient. Just one specific example of the general topic discussed. There's nothing specific about this claim. It is the general position being discussed.

    2% 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