LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning I, Q1

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.

___________

1. CORRECT. Kelton Company is a counterexample that disproves Joanna’s claim. 
2. No. Ruth disagrees with Joanna that the phenomenon even exists. 
3. 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. 
4. There’s no ambiguity, Joanna is clear: She doesn’t think a company can succeed by changing its business. Ruth disagrees. 
5. 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 here

Try the LSAT Hacks Course

Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly