LSAT 159 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Manufacturer: If our biggest competitor were to go out of business …

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Our biggest competitor must stay in business for us to stay in business.

REASONING: If they went out of business, some suppliers we both use would go bankrupt.

ANALYSIS: Let’s diagram what’s actually stated.

1. Competitor goes out of business -> suppliers bankrupt
2. We can only stay in business if the competitor stays in business.

There’s a missing link here between the suppliers and the manufacturer’s business. For that conclusion to follow, we need to connect these two. In other words, the reasoning only works if we have:

Suppliers bankrupt -> manufacturer goes out of business

When we combine that with premise 1, we get a nice chain that says: competitor out of business -> suppliers bankrupt -> manufacturer out of business.

That perfectly supports the conclusion that to stay in business, the competitor must stay in business.

___________

1. This just states an outcome, not a logical connection. It doesn’t explain why the manufacturer depends on its competitor.
2. This is too strong. The argument never says the competitor’s success guarantees the manufacturer’s success. Just that it depends on its survival.
3. This reverses the causal relationship completely.
4. This makes supplier survival a sufficient condition for the manufacturer’s survival. It says if the suppliers stay in business, the manufacturer will too. But the argument doesn’t need supplier survival to guarantee success; it needs supplier survival to be required for success. So this flips the relationship in the wrong direction.
5. CORRECT. This is the missing link. It makes supplier survival a necessary condition for the manufacturer’s survival. So the manufacturer will go out of business if the suppliers are bankrupted.