PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 19
In West Calverton, most pet stores sell exotic(40 more words not shown)
If the statements above are(9 more words not shown)
- AMost pet stores(13 more words not shown)
- BNo pet stores(12 more words not shown)
- CSome pet stores(10 more words not shown)
- DNo independently owned(12 more words not shown)
- EAny independently owned(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keep the groups separate. “Most stores” and “most bird-selling stores” don't necessarily describe the same number of stores.
Most means more than half. Imagine 100 stores, 60 selling exotic birds, and 40 of those 60 also selling tropical fish. Both “most” statements would be true, but fewer than half of all stores would sell fish if no others did. We cannot jump to a majority of all stores selling fish.
Now consider a different group: stores selling fish but no birds. Those stores must sell gerbils. Independently owned stores cannot sell gerbils. Put those last two facts together. Could an independent store sell fish without birds? No: that combination would require it to sell an animal it's forbidden by our information from selling.
What we’re looking for
That's something that must be true. The first two facts describe the larger population, but the last two already give us a definite restriction on independent stores. Check each answer against the precise group and combination it names.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns stores that are not independently owned. We aren't given the proportion of that group that sells birds. A majority of all stores selling birds doesn't settle how birds are distributed within this particular ownership group. Also, the gerbil prohibition applies to independent stores, not to these nonindependent stores.
- B
A nonindependent store could sell all three: fish, birds, and gerbils. The rule requires gerbils when a store sells fish without birds. It doesn't prohibit gerbils when a store sells both fish and birds. B invents that prohibition.
- C
Gerbil sellers might also sell birds, but we aren't guaranteed that overlap. The rule giving us gerbils applies to fish sellers that don't sell birds. Nothing requires some other gerbil seller to carry birds. A possible combination isn't enough for a must-be-true answer.
- DCorrect
Suppose an independent store sold fish but no birds. The fish-without-birds rule would require it to sell gerbils. But no independent store sells gerbils. Those facts cannot coexist, so an independent store cannot have that fish-without-birds combination. This follows directly without needing either “most” statement.
- E
An independent store with no fish doesn't trigger the fish-without-birds rule. It could sell only cats and dogs, with no birds or gerbils. That would respect the restriction on gerbils while making E false. We know what independent stores cannot sell; we aren't given a requirement that a store without fish must carry birds.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.