QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Ruth concludes that it’s possible for a company to succeed by completely changing its business after bankruptcy.
REASONING: Joanna said that it could never happen. But Ruth provided an example of one company that succeeded.
ANALYSIS: Ruth uses a counterexample. A single counter-example is enough to disprove a sufficient-necessary statement.
If I say: “All dogs are brown,” then you can prove me by wrong by pointing to a single dog that is black.
- CORRECT. Kelton Company is a counterexample that disproves Joanna’s claim.
- No. Ruth disagrees with Joanna that the phenomenon even exists.
- An analogy is different than a counterexample. An analogy is when you prove one argument by showing that the argument works in a parallel situation. Ruth’s evidence instead simply contradicts Joanna’s argument.
- There’s no ambiguity, Joanna is clear: She doesn’t think a company can succeed by changing its business. Ruth disagrees.
- Ruth didn’t say that it is always a good idea to change direction and never a good idea to produce the same goods. She just said that it can be a good idea to switch.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly