Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT7 S4 Q23 Explanation

The workers at Bell Manufacturing

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages. As Bell’s president is well aware, however, in order to increase the workers’ wages, Bell would have to sell some of Bell’s subsidiaries will be sold.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

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.

The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: increased losses2% picked this

    Bell Manufacturing will begin to suffer

    That new idea doesn't chain to anything we have or trigger any of our conditionals.

  2. Opposite2% picked this

    Bell’s management will refuse to increase its

    We need to establish that wages will increase, thereby triggering the second conditional premise.

  3. Correct80% picked this

    The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going

    Why this is right

    If we know for sure they will not go on strike, we trigger the chain of conditionals: no strike means wages increase, which means we have to sell some subsidiaries.

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

  4. Weaker Trigger Match13% picked this

    Bell’s president has the authority to offer the workers their desired

    Weaker Trigger Match: the authority to offer To trigger the conditional, we need wages to actually increase. The president simply having the authority to increase wages isn't quite a match.

  5. Out of Scope: benefits4% picked this

    Bell’s workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their

    This new idea doesn't trigger any of our conditionals. Not accepting a benefits package instead of the wage increase doesn't guarantee that the wage increase actually goes through, and if we can't guarantee the wage increase, we can't guarantee that we'll sell some subsidiaries.

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