Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q8 Buyer: As a buyer for a large

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

Buyer: As a buyer for a large chain of department stores, I will buy a garment only if it is fashionable and not too expensive for our clientele.

Evidence

The buyer will buy a garment only if it is fashionable and not too expensive for our clientele. BG → F and ~TE

The evening dress from the fall collection by Peruka is certainly fashionable F

but the dress is far too expensive for our clientele. TE

Conclusion

The buyer will not buy that dress [garment]. ~BG

Evaluate

This is a valid argument.

The first premise has two necessary conditions that both must be met in order to buy a garment.

One of these necessary conditions will be met but the other will not.

Based on this, the conclusion states that the evening dress [a garment] will not be bought.

It can also help to look at the contrapositive of the first premise:

If a garment is not fashionable or it is too expensive then the buyer will not buy the garment. ~F or TE → ~BG

The third premise triggers one of these sufficient conditions (TE), so we can conclude that the buyer will not buy this garment (~BG).

Goal

A correct answer will probably use this same type of contrapositive logic to reach its conclusion. In all likelihood, it will also have the other key features of this original argument: a compound necessary condition in which one item is fulfilled and the other is not.

8.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the pattern of reasoning in the buyer's argument?

  1. A snowflake will melt if

    Bad Evidence/Validity Match

    This answer places the compound condition in the sufficient position ("if warm AND not insulated, then melts"), not the necessary position. In the original, the compound condition is necessary (buy only if fashionable AND affordable). Additionally, this answer concludes the snowflake will not melt because it is insulated, which constitutes denying part of the sufficient condition — an invalid inference (illegal negation). The original argument validly denies one of the necessary conditions. Both the structural placement of the compound condition and the validity of the reasoning differ from the original.

    16% picked this

  2. Correct

    A stuffed animal, in order

    Why this is right

    This answer perfectly replicates the original's structure. The first premise establishes a compound necessary condition: to pass inspection, a stuffed animal must be free of sharp edges AND completely sealed (Pass -> Free of sharp edges AND Sealed). The second premise states the hippo is free of sharp edges (one necessary condition met) but not completely sealed (other necessary condition unmet). The conclusion: the hippo will not pass inspection. Via the contrapositive: Not free of sharp edges OR Not sealed -> Not pass. Since the hippo is not sealed, the contrapositive is triggered, and the conclusion follows validly. Every structural element matches: compound necessary condition, one met and one unmet, valid denial.

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

    79% picked this

  3. A sidewalk is accessible if

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer has a compound condition in the sufficient position ("if fully graded AND no bumps, then accessible"), and both conditions are met, leading to a conclusion that the sidewalk is accessible. The original has a compound necessary condition with one condition unmet. Here, both are met and the conclusion follows by affirming the sufficient condition — a valid inference, but a completely different logical pattern. The original concludes something will not happen because a necessary condition is unmet; this answer concludes something will happen because all sufficient conditions are met.

    1% picked this

  4. A poetic translation is accurate

    Bad Evidence/Validity Match

    This answer has the compound condition in the necessary position (accurate only if expresses meaning AND gives idea of meter), matching the original structurally. However, both necessary conditions are met, and the conclusion states the translation is accurate. This is an illegal reversal — affirming the necessary condition does not establish the sufficient condition. In the original, one necessary condition was unmet and the conclusion validly denied the sufficient condition. Here, both are met and the conclusion invalidly affirms it. The evidence pattern (both conditions met vs. one unmet) and the validity (invalid vs. valid) both differ.

    3% picked this

  5. An assembly may call a

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion/Validity Match

    Multiple mismatches disqualify this answer. First, only one necessary condition is confirmed (meets quorum requirements), while the status of the other (two-thirds vote) is left open — unlike the original, where one is confirmed and one is definitively denied. Second, the conclusion is a conditional statement ("unless the motion does not pass by two-thirds, this assembly may call a meeting"), whereas the original's conclusion is a simple categorical statement. Third, the conclusion commits an illegal reversal: from ACM -> Q AND MP2/3, plus Q, it concludes MP2/3 -> ACM. The structure, conclusion form, and validity all differ from the original.

    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