Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S2 · Q7 Economist: ChesChem, a chemical manufacturer

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

Economist: ChesChem, a chemical manufacturer located in Chester, uses natural gas for its enormous energy needs.

Conclusion

If the cost of natural gas in Chester increases at all, CC will move its manufacturing to Tilsen.

Evidence

If the cost of natural gas CC will move its in Chester becomes more → manufacturing than twice that in Tilsen to Tilsen

The cost of natural gas in Chester is currently twice that in Tilsen.

Evaluate

This argument seems hard to disagree with at first. Isn't the conclusion correct?

The cost of gas in Chester is currently twice the cost in Tilsen, and we have a rule that says as soon as the cost is more than twice of Tilsen's cost, that CC will move its operations to Tilsen.

So wouldn't it be true that if the cost of gas in Chester increases at all, we will trigger the rule and move to Tilsen?

We have to figure out how it could be possible that the cost of gas in Chester increases, but we don't trigger the rule, i.e. but the cost is not more than twice that of Tilsen.

The wiggle room comes from the possible objection that the cost of gas might go up simultaneously in both Chester and Tilsen.

Suppose right now that these are the prices of natural gas per cubic foot in each city: Chester - $40 / ft3 Tilsen - $20 / ft3

The author is thinking that if Chester goes up at all, say to $41 / ft3, then it will be more than twice of Tilsen.

But what if they both increased by $1 at the same time?

Chester - $41 / ft3 Tilsen - $21 / ft3

Now, Chester is actually less than twice as much as Tilsen, so the rule would not be triggered.

Goal

Since there's only one mathematical loophole out of this logic, we can be confident that the correct answer will rule out our objection and sound something like,

7.

The economist's argument requires assuming that

  1. ChesChem spends far more on

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: far more than Out of Scope: any other expense Comparing what CC spends on natural gas to what it spends on other stuff it totally outside the conversation. This conversation is only about whether CC will relocate to Tilsen, based on a rule that is strictly related to comparing the price of natural gas in Chester and Tilsen.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    the price of natural gas

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, it becomes a big weakening idea: the price of natural gas in Tilsen will increase That would allow us to argue that even if the cost of gas in Chester goes up, CC won't necessarily relocate its operations to Tilsen. That doesn't definitively tell us whether it will mean that Chester's price is still twice of Tilsen's, or is more than twice as much, or less than twice as much. But because it creates doubt, it weakens. The author is thinking that since Chester is currently 2x Tilsen, any change to Chester will necessarily make it greater than 2x Tilsen, but in order for that logic to work, you have to hold Tilsen's number constant (or decrease it).

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

    81% picked this

  3. ChesChem would not be profitable

    Out of Scope: profitable

    Nothing in this conversation is discussing profits. We're just analyzing a very mathematical cost-of-gas comparison that triggers a relocation.

    2% picked this

  4. the only benefit ChesChem would

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: the only Only Thing Mentioned ? Only Thing If we negate this, would it weaken? CC would receive other benefits in addition to cheaper gas costs, by moving to Tilsen. That would actually strengthen, making it more likely that CC will move to Tilsen. This answer choice does what so many trap answers on Necessary Assumption do. It tries to pretend like "the only benefit we mentioned (lower gas prices) is therefore the only benefit there is."

    1% picked this

  5. ChesChem will not move its

    Reversed Logic of Conclusion

    The conclusion says: price of natural gas ? CC moves operations increases in Chester to Tilsen This answer choice says: CC moves operations ? price of natural gas to Tilsen increases in Chester

    15% 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