LSAT 154 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Restaurant critic: Most people agree that the food at…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify

CONCLUSION: We should expect that the Traintrack Inn’s food is worse than Marva’s Diner’s food.

REASONING: The Traintrack inn has a good location, so it will always get customers.

ANALYSIS: You can use common sense to prephrase the principle. If a restaurant is convenient, people may go there even if the food is so-so. Whereas is a restaurant is inconvenient, people will only go there if there is a special reason, like excellent food. So, a restaurant like Marva’s has to try harder.

Stated as a principle, we can say something like: “Restaurants will focus on food quality if they need to, so a less convenient restaurant needs better food and will focus on that.”

___________

1. This goes against the argument. The argument seemed to show that a good location is actually a pretty great way to get new customers!
2. This talks about popularity. But we’re trying to explain food quality, and this answer does nothing to link popularity and food quality. A popular restaurant can have bad food, and an unpopular restaurant can have good food.
    
   The critics’ entire argument was about food quality, so the right answer has to relate to quality. This answer is something that is true according to the argument, but we’re looking for something that strengthens the argument’s reasoning.
3. This goes against the argument. Marva’s diner has good food, and yet it seems Traintrack Inn enjoys great popularity.
4. CORRECT. This works. Marva’s Diner presumably doesn’t have a convenient location, and so they had to work on their food to attract customers. Whereas Traintrack Inn is well located and so can afford to be lazy.
5. Plausibly, this answer hurts the argument severely! The author was arguing that there is some relation between a steady flow of customers and low food quality. This principle wrecks that argument.
    
   The best argument I could make in this answer’s favour is that it is merely irrelevant, rather than damaging. Technically, the author said it is convenience which hurts food quality, rather than popularity itself. In the example, Traintrack Inn’s popularity flowed from its convenience.
    
   But, if we show that popularity has no direct impact on food quality, what does that prove? Like B, this is merely something that may be true. Whereas we need the principle which can strengthen the author’s argument. If popularity has no impact, then how can we explain the poor food at the popular Traintrack Inn compared to the less popular Marva’s Diner?

Recap: The question begins with “Restaurant critic: Most people agree that the food at”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle Justify questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.