LSAT 114 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described as a…

QUESTION TYPE: Main Point

CONCLUSION: It is not a coincidence that the two desks were designed independently.

REASONING: No product like this had ever been released previously. The two products were incredibly similar in how they looked and how they worked.

ANALYSIS: The entire argument is aimed at showing that it is very suspicious that the two products look the same and work in the same way. The main point is that it can’t be a coincidence.

___________

1. This is true, but it’s only part of it. Soccer balls have many characteristics in common. This product was new and that’s why the similarity was significant. 
2. This isn’t certain. It could be that OCF copied Ergotech and managed to release the product first. 
3. CORRECT. There must have been some leaking of information from one company to another. At least, that’s the argument.
4. That would explain why the two desks worked the same way. But it wouldn’t explain why the two products looked incredibly similar as well. Mere coincidence isn’t enough to explain this.
5. This goes against what the argument is saying. The argument was claiming that the identical appearance was odd because the first product truly was unique until the second arrived.