PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 2
Last month OCF, Inc., announced what it described(92 more words not shown)
The main point of the(3 more words not shown)
- Athe two products(5 more words not shown)
- BErgoTech must have(10 more words not shown)
- Cthe similarities between(6 more words not shown)
- Dproduct designers sometimes(12 more words not shown)
- Enew products that(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
That is a lot of similarity for two supposedly independent designs. The unusual shapes match. So do the positions of the control panels, the kinds of controls, the adjustments, and the optional additions. I can see why the author is suspicious.
Could it still be a coincidence? Perhaps two designers independently solved the same problem in the same way. The companies offer that explanation, and listing similarities doesn't make it impossible. Still, the author thinks these similarities are too fundamental for coincidence to be believable.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the main point, so we don't have to settle who is right. What is the list of matching features supposed to convince us of? That the similarities aren't coincidental. That's the conclusion to find.
Working the answers
- A
The shared characteristics are the evidence. The author lists them to support a further claim about why the products are similar. Stopping at 'they have things in common' leaves out the point the author wants us to draw from those similarities.
- B
The author doesn't establish who copied whom, or even state this particular explanation. ErgoTech unveiled its product later, but a later unveiling doesn't tell us which design came first. OCF could have learned about ErgoTech's work before either announcement. That is a possibility, not an accusation we're adding. B goes beyond the author's conclusion by specifying a direction of copying.
- CCorrect
The similarities aren't coincidental. The companies say their designers independently reached the same solution; the author rejects that account and supports the rejection with the matching features. We can identify this conclusion even while wondering whether the evidence proves it.
- D
Independent designers reaching the same solution is the possibility the companies invoke. But the author argues that it doesn't explain this particular case. A general statement that such coincidences sometimes occur isn't the author's main conclusion about these two workstations.
- E
This is a broad observation about apparently unique products. The argument focuses on whether the similarities between two particular products arose by coincidence. It doesn't develop a general lesson that new products are sometimes variations of older ones. E replaces the actual dispute with a different claim.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.