Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT151 S2 Q25 ExplanationMayor: Periodically an ice cream company

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

Mayor: Periodically an ice cream company will hold a free ice cream day as a promotion. Showing up may not cost you any money, but it sure does cost you time. We learn from this that when something valuable costs no money you get overconsumption and long lines. Currently, those who drive the use of roads during rush hour. Then rush hour congestion will abate.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question

25.

The claim that when something valuable costs no money you get overconsumption and long lines plays which one of the following roles

Answer choices, explained

Opposite: rejected2% picked this
It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the
This claim supports the conclusion, but this answer is saying we reject it en route to our conclusion.
2%
Not Opposing3% picked this
It is a concession made to those who dispute an analogy drawn
A concession is the same as granting your opponent a point. It's not in the Support family (premise, illustration, example, subsidiary conclusion, ruling out objection). Also there's no one present disputing the analogy, so we can't match this up with anything.
3%
Wrong Role15% picked this
It helps establish the importance of the argument’s overall conclusion, but is not offered as
This isn't a role I've ever seen tested as a correct answer. It seems to describe a piece of background that would set the context for the argument. For example, "Global warming is the most important problem facing humanity. We should switch to a vegetarian diet; after all, eating meat is one of the behavior that adds the most to global warming." At any rate, the claim we're being tested on was definitely offered as evidence for the conclusion that we should charge a toll for driving on the road at rush hour.
15%
Correct73% picked this
It is a general claim used in support of the argument’s
Why this is right
It is indeed a general claim (it's phrased as a broad takeaway from the ice cream example) that serves as a principle underlying the author's suggestion. Since "not being charged for something valuable leads to overcrowding", the author thinks that "charging for rush-hour road use will lessen overcrowding".
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
73%
Wrong Role7% picked this
It is the overall conclusion of
The conclusion is the "What is needed is a system for charging to use the road during rush-hour", and the claim we're being asked about is the biggest supporting reason for why the author thinks we need that system.
7%

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