Between 1971 and 1975, the

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

TopicsNecessary 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

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

Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors drug companies issued an average of 60 citations a year for serious violations of drug-promotion laws. Between 1976 and 1980, the annual average for issuance of such citations was only 5. This decrease indicates that the government office was, on 1976 and 1980 than it was between 1971 and 1975.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

The argument assumes which one of

Answer choices

Correct89% picked this
The decrease in the number of citations was not caused by a decrease in drug companies’
Why this is right
This is ruling out an Alternate Explanation by stating that the decrease in citations was not due to a decrease in violations. If we negate (A), suggesting violations did decrease, it weakens the argument by allowing us to argue "the decrease wasn't because they were more lax, it's because there were just fewer bad behaviors to cite."
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
89%
Out of Scope: minor violations5% picked this
A change in enforcement of drug-promotion laws did not apply to
Answer (B) talks about minor violations, which are not discussed in the context of the serious violations related to the conclusion. The argument's evidence and conclusion revolve around serious violations, so minor violations are outside the scope.
5%
Irrelevant Causality: political pressure3% picked this
The enforcement of drug-promotion laws changed in response to
This goes beyond the conclusion. The author is just trying to convince us that there HAS been a change in enforcement style (it's more lax now). She doesn't need to assume anything about what caused that change. Her case only hinges on whether they've changed, not whether the change was caused by X vs. Y vs. Z.
3%
Out of Scope: should1% picked this
The government office should not issue more than an average of 5 citations a year to drug companies for
Answer (D) suggests a normative claim about the number of citations. However, the conclusion is descriptive, comparing the past enforcement with later enforcement, not prescribing what enforcement should be.
1%
Out of Scope: before 19711% picked this
Before 1971 the government office issued more than 60 citations a year to drug companies for serious
Answer (E) discusses the number of citations issued before 1971, which is outside the time frame and scope mentioned in the argument. The conclusion does not rely on this information or any historical context before 1971.
1%

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