PrepTest 112, Section 1, Question 1
Joanna: The only way for a company to(67 more words not shown)
Ruth uses which one of(8 more words not shown)
- AShe presents a(4 more words not shown)
- BShe offers an(5 more words not shown)
- CShe supports a(8 more words not shown)
- DShe undermines a(9 more words not shown)
- EShe establishes a(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the old business ended in bankruptcy, couldn't a change be worth trying?
Joanna says sticking to the same goods or services is the only route to success afterward. I can see why learning an unfamiliar business might be difficult, but “only” is a strong claim. She isn't just warning that a change could fail. She says trying a new business is futile: it cannot produce the successful recovery at issue.
Then Ruth gives us Kelton. It went bankrupt as a mining company and became successful in waste management. That is exactly the combination Joanna rules out: a different business and a successful recovery. We don't have to know why Kelton's new operation worked to see the problem for Joanna.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how Ruth responds. I'd say she presents a concrete case that breaks Joanna's rule. If even one company succeeds after switching businesses, sticking to the old business cannot be the only way to succeed.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Kelton is a counterexample: an actual case that conflicts with the general claim. Joanna says a company cannot recover successfully through a new line of business; Ruth identifies a company that did. One such case is enough to defeat the “only way” claim, even if many other companies would fail after switching.
- B
We aren't given two competing explanations of why Kelton became successful. Joanna makes a general claim about what companies must do, and Ruth gives a case that doesn't fit it. Ruth doesn't need to explain the causes of Kelton's success to show that Joanna's restriction is false.
- C
An analogy would compare the company's situation with another kind of situation and use the similarity to support a conclusion. Kelton isn't merely a comparison. It is itself a company that emerged from bankruptcy, changed businesses and succeeded. It directly falls within the group Joanna's rule covers.
- D
Ruth doesn't argue about an unclear meaning of “goods,” “services” or “business.” She accepts the relevant distinction between mining and waste management and points to a successful switch. The criticism concerns what happened, not an ambiguity in how Joanna describes it.
- E
Ruth does support the rejection of Joanna's claim, but she doesn't do so by considering and eliminating the only other plausible conclusion. She gives evidence that directly conflicts with the rule. E describes a process of ruling out alternatives that we never see.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.