Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q5 Businessperson: Brenner and Chen

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

Businessperson: Brenner and Chen are the only applicants who have the qualifications we require.

Evidence

Brenner and Chen are the only applicants who have the qualifications we require.

Brenner has a history of not getting along with coworkers.

Conclusion (so)

We should hire Chen.

Evaluate

The evidence indicates that there are only two options: only Brenner and Chen have the required qualifications. The evidence then gives a reason to rule out one of the options: Brenner has an unfavorable history.

It's useful to notice that this is an incomplete comparison: we aren't told anything about Chen's history. Does Chen also have a history of not getting along with coworkers? We don't know if they do or don't.

By concluding that we should hire Chen, the argument assumes that Chen is different from Brenner, and does not have the same history. The argument also assumes that there aren't other good reasons to avoid hiring Chen. Chen might be a known serial killer, or might be expecting a much higher salary than we can offer. With only this one fact about Brenner and no other information about Chen, we can't conclude that hiring Chen is a correct decision.

Goal

Look for an answer choice that follows the same pattern: two possibilities are offered; we're given a reason to rule out one choice; and the conclusion erroneously states that we should chose the other option. Beware of answers with a significantly different structure and answers that are similar to the original but not flawed in the same way.

5.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the businessperson's argument?

  1. Jennifer has long been interested

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    The evidence in this answer choice describes two options, Mexico and Peru, but doesn't give a reason to rule out one option like the original argument does. The conclusion in the original argument recommends choosing one option, but this argument's conclusion doesn't recommend choosing either Mexico or Peru.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Jennifer has been planning to

    Why this is right

    Like the original, this argument suggests two possibilities: Mexico and Peru. The argument gives one reason to eliminate Peru, then erroneously concludes that Mexico should be chosen. Do we know whether or not there are floods in Mexico? Could there be another reason for Jennifer to avoid visiting Mexico? Maybe she had a wild night partying with friends in Los Algodones while she was working in Yuma that one time, and is afraid to run into someone who will recognize her. What? It's just a made-up example to illustrate the point. Sort of.

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

    97% picked this

  3. Jennifer would like to visit

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    The evidence in this answer choice doesn't give a reason to rule out one option like the original argument does. The conclusion in the original argument explicitly recommends one option—Chen—but this argument's conclusion doesn't explicitly recommend either Mexico or Peru.

    0% picked this

  4. Jennifer has been planning to

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    The evidence in this answer choice doesn't give a reason to rule out one option like the original argument does. It instead gives a reason to choose both. And the conclusion recommends choosing both options, not just one like the original argument does.

    0% picked this

  5. Jennifer would like to visit

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    Like all of the answer choices, this one presents two options. The original argument gives a reason to rule out one option while saying nothing about the other. However, this answer choice compares the two options and describes an advantage that one has over the other: travel to Mexico is currently cheaper than to Peru. The conclusion in this answer choice also doesn't match the original: the original argument did not suggest hiring Chen now and Brenner at a later date.

    1% 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