Logical Reasoning

PT158 · S4 · Q15 One should only buy a frying

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

One should only buy a frying pan that has a manufacturer's warranty, even if it requires paying more, and even if one would never bother seeking reimbursement should the pan not work well or last long.

Conclusion

Even if you have to pay more and even if you would never follow through on making a warranty claim if your pan broke, you should only buy a pan that has a warranty.

Evidence

If offering a warranty meant that a company would need to reimburse a bunch of customers when the product broke, then manufacturers wouldn't offer a warranty.

Evaluate

This premise is conditional. By contrapositive, it tells us something we know about every frying pan that offers a warranty.

if manufacturers → company doesn't think they offer warranty will have to reimburse many

So our author is saying that we should only buy pans that offer a warranty, because that means the manufacturer isn't worried about having to pay out a bunch of warranty claims.

Our author is assuming that .

But maybe they're not worried because even though they anticipate many of them breaking, they don't think many customers will have the follow-through to claim the warranty.

Goal

The answer will give us more reason to buy pans that offer warranties, or it will rule out a possible objection, such as

15.

The conclusion of the argument is strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Correct

    Most people who buy a

    Why this is right

    This assumption fills the argument's logical gap. The argument says you should buy warranted pans because manufacturers only warrant quality products. But why would manufacturers be selective about warranting products if most buyers (like the person addressed) would never seek reimbursement? Because — according to this answer — MOST people who buy warranted products WOULD seek reimbursement if the product failed. With this assumption, the full chain works: (1) Most warranty buyers would actually use the warranty if the product fails. (2) Therefore, warranting a bad product exposes the manufacturer to real financial loss. (3) Therefore, manufacturers only warrant products they believe will perform well. (4) Therefore, a warranty reliably signals quality. (5) Therefore, you should buy warranted pans — even though YOU wouldn't use the warranty. You are free-riding on other customers' willingness to seek reimbursement. Their complaints keep manufacturers honest, and you benefit from the resulting quality assurance.

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

    47% picked this

  2. All of the frying pans

    Undermines

    If warranted pans perform exactly as well as non-warranted pans at the time of purchase, then the warranty provides no quality advantage. The argument's entire thesis is that you should prefer warranted pans because the warranty indicates superior quality. If quality is identical regardless of warranty status, the warranty is meaningless noise, and paying extra for a warranted pan is paying extra for nothing. This answer does not just fail to strengthen — it actively undermines the argument's recommendation.

    19% picked this

  3. The more a frying pan

    No Impact

    The relationship between price and warranty status does not establish that warranties indicate quality. A product can be expensive and warranted yet mediocre, or inexpensive and unwarranted yet excellent. The argument needs a connection between warranty status and product quality — specifically, that manufacturers only warrant good products. A correlation between price and warranty status provides no information about the quality-signaling function of warranties. The argument's gap is about WHY manufacturers warrant products, not about WHICH products happen to be warranted.

    9% picked this

  4. The most expensive frying pans

    Wrong Variable

    This answer connects price to quality (expensive pans work well), but the argument needs a connection between warranty and quality (warranted pans work well). These are different variables. Even if every expensive pan performed brilliantly, that would not tell us whether a warranty on a moderately-priced pan indicates anything about its quality. The argument's recommendation is specifically to buy warranted pans — not expensive pans. The warranty, not the price tag, must be the reliable quality indicator.

    7% picked this

  5. Most frying pan manufacturers' warranties

    Too Vague

    "Full customer satisfaction" is an imprecise claim that does not address the argument's specific gap. The argument needs to establish WHY manufacturers selectively warrant products — specifically, that warranties impose real financial risk, making them reliable quality signals. "Full satisfaction" is a vague outcome claim that does not provide a mechanism. It does not explain why manufacturers would be reluctant to warrant bad products or why the warranty signals quality. If anything, it sounds like a marketing slogan rather than a logical premise.

    18% 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