LSAT 105 – Section 1 – Question 05

LSAT 105 - Section 1 - Question 05

February 1999

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

Target time: 1:10

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
PT105 S1 Q05	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 1% 156 B 4% 159 C 6% 160 D 5% 159 E 84% 166	131 144 157	+Medium	147.243 +SubsectionMedium

Large discount chains can make a profit even while offering low prices, because they buy goods in large quantities at favorable cost. This creates a problem for small retailers. If they try to retain their customers by lowering prices to match those of large discount chains, the result is a lower profit margin. But small retailers can retain their customer base without lowering prices if they offer exceptional service. Hence, small retailers that are forced to compete with large discount chains must offer exceptional service in order to retain their level of profitability.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that small retailers competing with large discount chains must offer exceptional service in order to retain profitability. She supports with a conditional claim: if small retailers offer exceptional service, then they can keep their customers without lowering prices.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “offering exceptional service” as necessary for “retaining profitability.” But according to her premise, “offering exceptional service” is sufficient, not necessary.

In other words, her reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account the possibility that small retailers may be able to retain their profitability by some other means.

Note that the author assumes that “retaining profitability” either leads to or else is the same as “retaining their customer base...”

not all large discount chains do in fact make a profit

The argument is about the profit of small retailers, not large discount chains. Whether or not some discount chains fail to make a profit doesn't affect the author’s argument.

some large discount chains have lower profit margins than do some small retailers

The author is addressing what small retailers need to do in order to retain their customers and profit. It doesn't matter whether some large discount chains have lower profit margins than some small retailers; the author never compares the two.

small retailers are often motivated by things other than the desire for profit

This doesn't affect the author’s argument, because her conclusion is only addressing what small retailers need to do in order to retain profitability. Whether or not they want to retain profitability is irrelevant.

not all small retailers are forced to compete with large discount chains

This is irrelevant because the author’s conclusion isn’t about all small retailers. Instead, it only addresses “small retailers that are forced to compete with large discount chains.”

exceptional service is not the only reason customers prefer small retail stores

The author’s conclusion mistakenly treats “offering exceptional service” as a necessary condition, while in the premises, it’s merely sufficient. In other words, she overlooks the possibility that customers may prefer small retailers for other reasons.

LSAT 105 – Section 1 – Question 05

LSAT 105 - Section 1 - Question 05

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel