Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling

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

TopicsRole

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

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

Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a "three and up" label is required on toys toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

What this question is testing

Role

Conclusion

The advocate's main point is right up front: the law should require explicit safety labels.

Evidence

Everything that follows is in service of that recommendation. The current law (just age ranges) has helped, but the advocate argues we could prevent injuries almost entirely with explicit safety labels.

Goal

The cited statement is the recommendation the advocate is arguing for. Find the answer that calls it the conclusion.

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

The question

11.

The statement that the law should require explicit safety labels on toys serves which one of the following functions in

Answer choices

Bad Description6% picked this
It is a general principle supporting the conclusion of
The cited statement is a specific recommendation about toy-labeling law, not a general principle. The advocate does not appeal to a higher principle and apply it to this case — the advocate states the recommendation directly and supports it with claims about current labels and what parents could do with better information.
6%
Bad Description1% picked this
It is a proposed compromise between two
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%
Correct90% picked this
It is the conclusion of the
Why this is right
This is the role of the cited statement. It is the recommendation the advocate is making, and the rest of the argument — current labels, the limited reduction in injuries, the potential of explicit safety information — is offered to support it. Even though it is the first sentence in the stimulus, it is the conclusion: it is the claim everything else points toward.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
90%
Bad Description1% picked this
It is evidence that must be refuted in order to establish the conclusion
The cited statement is the advocate's own recommendation, not something the advocate is trying to refute. The argument is built on this statement — the rest of the stimulus is defending it, not attacking it.
1%
Bad Description2% picked this
It is a particular instance of the general position
The cited statement is not an instance of a broader position discussed elsewhere in the argument. There is no general position under discussion that this statement illustrates. It is the advocate's standalone recommendation.
2%

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