Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q2 Banking industry visionaries foresee

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

Banking industry visionaries foresee a bright day in the near future when customers will be able to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from the comfort of their own homes.

Opposing Evidence

Banking industry visionaries foresee a bright day in the near future when customers will be able to transact all their financial business by means of computers or telephones from the comfort of their own homes.

Conclusion

That [transacting all financial business from home by means of computers or telephones] may be more of a paradise for banks than for their customers.

Evicence

As banks eliminate their branch offices and customer-service employees, customers will have to serve as their own tellers—and pay more transaction fees for their efforts.

Goal

A correct answer will indicate that conducting financial business from home by computer or telephone is not as beneficial for customers as it is for banks.

2.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument?

  1. In the near future, bank

    Opposing Idea

    This answer restates the opposing view presented in the first sentence of the argument — the banking industry's optimistic vision of home banking. The author introduces this view only to push back against it with "but." The conclusion is the author's own position, not the position being challenged. This answer captures the setup, not the punchline.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Enabling bank customers to transact

    Why this is right

    This answer accurately paraphrases the author's conclusion from the second sentence. The author states that home banking "may be more of a paradise for banks than for their customers." This answer restates that idea: enabling home banking "may be more beneficial to banks than to their customers." The wording is different but the meaning is identical — a comparative claim that home banking disproportionately serves banks' interests. This is exactly what a correct Main Conclusion answer should do: capture the same idea in slightly different language.

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

    90% picked this

  3. As banks eliminate branch offices

    Premise

    This answer restates the evidence from the third sentence of the argument. The fact that customers will serve as their own tellers and pay more fees is the reason the author believes home banking benefits banks more than customers. It is the support for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. In the argument's structure, this information explains why the author holds the view expressed in the second sentence.

    6% picked this

  4. Eliminating branch offices and customer-service

    Too Specific

    This answer captures only half of the conclusion. The author's point is comparative — home banking benefits banks more than customers. This answer only addresses the bank side: eliminating branches would benefit banks. It omits the customer side entirely and drops the crucial comparison. The conclusion is not just that banks will benefit; it is that banks will benefit more than customers will. Additionally, the conclusion is about the broader phenomenon of home banking, not just about eliminating branch offices specifically.

    2% picked this

  5. Enabling customers to transact all

    Word Salad

    This answer cobbles together language from different parts of the argument without accurately representing any single claim the author makes. It connects home banking to the elimination of branches and employees, blending the opposing view (home banking) with the evidence (eliminating branches) into a causal claim the author never explicitly states. The conclusion is about who benefits more from home banking, not about what home banking enables banks to do. This answer sounds like it could be part of the argument, but it does not match the actual conclusion.

    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