Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q4 Zahler Motors executive: The Graham Motor Company

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

Zahler Motors executive: The Graham Motor Company should stop running its deceptive minivan commercial, which claims that Graham's minivan has a foldable third-row seat while our minivans do not.

Z Motor's Conclusion

G Motor should stop running its deceptive minivan commercial.

Evidence

The commercial claims that G's minivan has a foldable 3rd row seat and that Z's minivan does not.

But the new minivan from Z, which recently began arriving at dealers, has a foldable 3rd row seat.

G Motor's Conclusion

The commercial isn't misleading.

Evidence

Z dealers are still selling new minivans from the previous model year, which lack a foldable 3rd row.

Evaluate

The two companies are fighting over whether or not it's misleading for G's commercial to claim that Z's minivan lacks a foldable 3rd row seat.

G says it isn't misleading, because Z dealers are still selling new minivans that lack a 3rd row seat.

Z says it is misleading, because the new Z minivans that are recently arriving at dealerships do have a 3rd row seat.

The question stem wants a principle accepted by Graham but not by Zahler, so let's look for a principle that would allow Graham to be able to fairly argue that their commercial isn't misleading.

Goal

Let's try to find something like,

4.

The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that which one of the following principles is accepted by the Graham executive but not by the Zahler executive?

  1. Correct

    It is not misleading for

    Why this is right

    This would work to fit the argument that G Motors is making. This rule looks like this: If some instances of the then it is not misleading competing product that for a company to say in are currently offered for → its ads that its product sale lack the feature in has a feature that a questions competing prod lacks As G Motors points out, some instances of Z minivans currently offered for sale lack the feature of a 3rd row seat ("Z dealers are still selling new minivans from the previous model year, which lack a foldable 3rd row seat"). Therefore, according to this rule, it isn't misleading for G to say in its ads that its minivan has a feature (foldable 3rd row) that Z minivans lack. And of course we know that Z Motors would disagree with this principle because they think the commercial is misleading.

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

    95% picked this

  2. It is not misleading for

    Bad Evidence Match

    This does fit the conclusion that G Motors is making, but the premise doesn't match up with anything. If company executives then it is not misleading are unaware that the for a company to say in competing product has → its ads that its product the feature in question has a feature that a competing prod lacks Did G Motors argue, "Our commercial isn't misleading -- after all, our executives had no idea that new Z minivans had a foldable 3rd row seat!" No, they argued, "Our commercial isn't misleading -- after all, Z dealers are still selling new minivans without a foldable 3rd row seat".

    1% picked this

  3. It is not misleading for

    Bad Evidence Match

    This does fit the conclusion that G Motors is making, but the premise doesn't match up with anything. If most consumers would then it is not misleading not choose the product for a company to say in solely or primarily based → its ads that its product on whether product has has a feature that a the feature in question competing prod lacks Did G Motors argue, "Our commercial isn't misleading -- after all, most consumers are not making their decision primarily on whether a minivan has a foldable 3rd row seat!" No, they argued, "Our commercial isn't misleading -- after all, Z dealers are still selling new minivans without a foldable 3rd row seat".

    1% picked this

  4. It is misleading for a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is a principle that would allow one to argue that an advertisement is misleading. That's what Z Motors is trying to argue, not what G Motors is trying to argue.

    0% picked this

  5. It is misleading for a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is a principle that would allow one to argue that an advertisement is misleading. That's what Z Motors is trying to argue, not what G Motors is trying to argue.

    3% 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