LSAT 120 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 120 - Section 1 - Question 07

October 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:12

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT120 S1 Q07
+LR
Must be false +MBF
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
84%
164
B
1%
154
C
2%
154
D
6%
157
E
7%
157
137
146
156
 +Medium 145.819 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Terry: Months ago, I submitted a claim for my stolen bicycle to my insurance company. After hearing nothing for several weeks, I contacted the firm and found they had no record of my claim. Since then, I have resubmitted the claim twice and called the firm repeatedly, but I have yet to receive a settlement. Anyone can make mistakes, of course, but the persistence of the error makes me conclude that the company is deliberately avoiding paying up.

Summary

Terry submitted a claim for his stolen bicycle.

Weeks later, the insurance company had no record of the claim.

Terry then submitted the claim two more times, but has not received a settlement.

Anyone can make mistakes.

Because of the persistence of the error, Terry believes that the company is avoiding paying the settlement.

Notable Valid Inferences

Terry believes that the delay in paying the settlement is not an unintentional mistake by the insurance company.

A
Consumers should avoid attributing dishonesty to a corporation when the actions of the corporation might instead be explained by incompetence.

This must be false. Terry has attributed dishonesty to the corporation, even though the corporation’s actions could be explained by incompetence. Terry’s conclusion that the company is deliberately avoiding paying the settlement is a violation of this principle.

B
Consumers should attempt to keep themselves informed of corporate behavior that directly affects their interests.

This could be true. We just don’t have enough information to determine how much Terry has been keeping himself informed.

C
In judging the quality of service of a corporation, a consumer should rely primarily on the consumer’s own experience with the corporation.

This could be true. Terry is relying on his own experience to make his conclusion, so this principle has not been violated.

D
In judging the morality of a corporation’s behavior, as opposed to that of an individual, mitigating circumstances are irrelevant.

This could be true. Terry doesn’t seem to be considering mitigating circumstances, so the information given is consistent with the principle in (D).

E
Corporations ought to make available to a customer any information the customer requests that is relevant to the customer’s interests.

This could be true. The first time Terry reached out, the corporation answered that they had no record of his claim. In further communications, we only know that Terry hasn’t received his settlement; we don’t know if the corporation withheld information.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply