Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S1 · Q17 Xavier: The new fast-food place

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

Xavier: The new fast-food place on 10th Street is out of business already.

Miranda: Agrees, Disagrees, or ?

The new fast-food place on 10th ? Street is out of business already.

I’m not surprised. A

It had no indoor seating A

few people want to sit outside and ? breathe exhaust fumes while they eat.

Evaluate

Miranda doesn't explicitly reveal whether she agrees the place it out of business. She only indicates that she expected it to out of business at some point (since she thinks the bank exercised poor judgment in loaning the business money).

There seems to be some agreement in the realm of and the attached sentiment that "restaurants w/o indoor seating are likely to struggle" (few people want to / likely to fail).

Goal

Look for something like .

17.

It can be inferred from the dialogue that Xavier and Miranda agree that

  1. few people want to sit

    Unsupported for Both

    At first it seems like Person 1 definitely believes this, but Person 1 is specifically saying that no one wants to sit outside + breathe exhaust, not that no one wants to sit outside. And of course Person 2 just implies that restaurants need the option of indoor seating. If I say that a hot dog place lacking ketchup is likely to fail, I'm not saying "few people want mustard".

    28% picked this

  2. banks should not finance restaurants

    Unsupportable for Both

    Only Miranda talked about banks. She would seemingly agree with this, since she thinks that it was irresponsible of the bank to lend them money to build a restaurant w/o indoor seating. However, her sentiment is only about fast-food restaurants. We don't know if it extends to all restaurants. More importantly, we have no idea how Person 1 feels about banks.

    1% picked this

  3. if the new fast-food place

    Unsupported for Both

    This commits a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw with the conversation. Both people were conveying the idea that having no indoor seating is a recipe for failure, but that doesn't mean they think that having indoor seating is a near-guarantee of success.

    22% picked this

  4. a fast-food place on 10th

    Unsupported for Both

    Neither person was saying that "offering any outdoor seating makes you likely to fail". They were both saying "offering no indoor seating makes you likely to fail, if you're a fast-food joint on 10th Street".

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    the new fast-food place on

    Why this is right

    Person 1 supports this by saying "it's out of business already. I'm not surprised". If you're not surprised that a business is already out of business, then you must not have thought highly of it in the first place. "Risky venture" in the context of the discussion, means a business with a low probability of success. Person 2 supports this by saying "one lacking indoor seating was likely to fail. The bank was sloppy to loan them money." This conveys the same sentiment that Person 2 did not think highly of this business venture. She's surprised that a loan officer would lend money to an ill-conceived business.

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

    45% 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