Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q25 Shopkeeper: Our city will soon

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

Shopkeeper: Our city will soon approve the construction of a new shopping center, but I won’t be relocating my store there.

Conclusion

I won't be relocating my ~A is not X. store to new shopping center.

Evidence

My store has two requirements: A → B and C growth potential and visibility

There are two options for the X is Y or Z. new shopping center: Maple or West

Maple ≠ visible Y is ~B. West ≠ growth potential Z is ~C

Evaluate

I would think of this in casual terms as: This thing has two must-have's . There are two options for this thing, but each of them lacks one of the must-have's. Thus this thing ain't cool with either of those two options.

Goal

Make sure there are two required ingredients. Look for two options, each of which fails one of the required ingredients. The conclusion should reflect that both options failed.

25.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to the shopkeeper's pattern of reasoning?

  1. Appiah will not renew the

    Bad Premise Match

    She's got two must-have's: rent doesn't go up / can have pet. But we don't see two options, one where the rent would go up and one where she can't have a pet. So we should bail.

    13% picked this

  2. Professor Myers is unable to

    Weak Premise Match

    The premises aren't giving us two must-have's. We just know that teaching a class has one requirement: has to be in Diaz Hall. Without the two must-have's, it's going to be hard to replicate the logic of Each of these two options fails to give me one of my must-have's.

    3% picked this

  3. Finch will not travel this

    Weak Premise Match

    We almost get two must-have's, but this "unless" rule doesn't say that Finch needs two things, it says he needs at least one of two things. We need a conditional that says X ----requires→ Y and Z. This conditional says X ----requires→ Y or Z.

    22% picked this

  4. Correct

    The concert will not sell

    Why this is right

    We have two must have's: small venue / downtown area. We have two options: Jensen or Pembroke. Does each option fail to meet one of the requirements? Yes, Jensen isn't a small venue. Pembroke isn't downtown. Does the conclusion reflect this failure? Yes, it says the original thing won't happen (concert won't sell out).

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

    58% picked this

  5. The new park near the

    Weak Premise Match

    We do get two must-have's: well lit / undisturbed scenery. Do we get two options? Nope. Just one ... the riverbank. We can bail.

    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