Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT155 S2 Q23 ExplanationKira: It would be unwise

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMethod

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

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

Kira: It would be unwise for you to buy that insurance policy. It’s designed to make money for the company that sells it to prices to ensure profits.

Binh: Undeniably, the insurer is in business to make money. But the mere fact that an insurer draws a profit in no way implies its policies is unwise.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question
23.

Binh responds to Kira’s argument by doing which one of

Answer choices, explained

  1. Out of Scope: new fact20% picked this

    suggesting that Kira has overlooked a fact that, although consistent with her premises, is in direct

    Binh doesn't present any new facts. He just says, "Yup, your premise is true, but it's garbage in terms of lending any support to your conclusion."

  2. Contradicted3% picked this

    denying Kira’s premises while suggesting that her conclusion, although possibly true,

    Binh explicitly accepts Kira's premises. (in fact, I don't think I've ever seen a correct answer on Method of Response in which the 2nd person denied the truth of the 1st person's evidence)

  3. Bad 2nd Half9% picked this

    arguing that Kira’s premises are not only inadequate to prove her conclusion but in fact point strongly

    The first half of this is descriptively accurate, but Binh doesn't make any commentary on whether this specific insurance policy would / wouldn't be a wise purchase. He's only saying that Kira's reason for rejecting it is a completely hollow reason. He doesn't think that her reason actually points in the opposite direction.

  4. Correct66% picked this

    conceding Kira’s premises without denying her conclusion, while asserting that the latter does not follow

    Why this is right

    Binh does indeed agree to (concede) that Kira's evidence is true. He just says it has no power to influence her conclusion, which means "her conclusion does not follow from her premises". His final sentence is basically saying this: The fact that [your premises] in no way implies [your conclusion]. And this answer is just saying it inverted: [Your conclusion] in no way follows from [your premises]

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

  5. Contradicted3% picked this

    observing that while Kira’s premises each independently support her conclusion, the premises themselves are inconsistent

    Binh definitely does not think the premises support her conclusion. He explicitly says that "the mere fact that [your premise] in no way implies [your conclusion]." Also, saying that premises are inconsistent means that the premises actually contradict each other, which is an incredibly strong accusation that is (almost?) never right.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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