LSAT 31, Logical Reasoning II, Q3, LSATHacks

LR Question 3 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements…

QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported

ARGUMENTS: David thinks that it is unfair to prevent companies from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. The company will then have little leverage in negotiations with strikers.

Lynn thinks that the companies will still have sufficient leverage if they hired temporary replacements. 

ANALYSIS: They are arguing over how much leverage is lost when companies cannot hire permanent workers. 

___________

1. David might believe that the companies have some leverage but not enough.
2. Lynn doesn’t seem to think that companies should have as much leverage as possible. 
3. CORRECT. Lin thinks that companies will still have “sufficient” leverage. David thinks that they will only have “little” leverage if they can’t hire permanent workers. 
4. We don’t know. David doesn’t say how much leverage they should have and Lin doesn’t define sufficient.
5. Actually this is what David believes. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.