LSAT 112 – Section 1 – Question 01

LSAT 112 - Section 1 - Question 01

December 2001

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:46

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
PT112 S1 Q01
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
96%
159
B
1%
148
C
2%
148
D
1%
145
E
0%
151
120
127
136
 +Easiest 147.196 +SubsectionMedium

Joanna: The only way for a company to be successful, after emerging from bankruptcy, is to produce the same goods or services that it did before going bankrupt. It is futile for such a company to try to learn a whole new business.

Ruth: Wrong. The Kelton Company was a major mining operation that went into bankruptcy. On emerging from bankruptcy, Kelton turned its mines into landfills and is presently a highly successful waste-management concern.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to Joanna’s claim that the only way for a company to succeed after bankruptcy is to return to producing the same goods and services, Ruth concludes that this claim is incorrect. As evidence, Ruth points out that the Kelton Company, once a mining operation, operates a successful waste-management concern following bankruptcy.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Ruth counters the position held by Joanna. She does this by presenting a counterexample that contradicts Joanna’s claim. If the Kelton Company operates a successful business model different from its original business model, then it can’t be true that the only way for a company to be successful after bankruptcy is to return to their original business model.

A
She presents a counterexample to a claim.
The counterexample Ruth presents is the Kelton Company.
B
She offers an alternative explanation for a phenomenon.
Ruth does not offer an alternative explanation. She only addresses Joanna’s claims directly.
C
She supports a claim by offering a developed and relevant analogy.
Ruth’s response presents a counterexample, not an analogy.
D
She undermines a claim by showing that it rests on an ambiguity.
Ruth does not point out any ambiguity.
E
She establishes a conclusion by excluding the only plausible alternative to that conclusion.
Ruth does not exclude any alternative explanations.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply