PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 7
Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design(62 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(8 more words not shown)
- AThere are other(15 more words not shown)
- BBaxe does not(17 more words not shown)
- CFor the most(16 more words not shown)
- DAt least some(23 more words not shown)
- EThe existence of(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Winning a design award doesn't guarantee winning the client.
The small companies have prestigious awards that Baxe lacks. That might make their work attractive, but awards alone don't establish that small companies generally produce better designs. More importantly, the managers have a condition that comes before choosing a design: they will contract only with a company they think is unlikely to go bankrupt.
In the managers' view, only very large companies clear that hurdle. A small company could show them an impressive design and still be rejected because they worry the company won't stay in business. Knowing about the design wouldn't remove the concern.
What we’re looking for
For the supported conclusion, I'd predict that the award-winning small firms aren't going to take away Baxe's corporate business under these conditions. Size and perceived financial stability protect Baxe from that competition, even if a smaller firm's design is better.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told whether there are other very large design companies, much less how their work compares with Baxe's. Baxe could have large rivals, or it could be the only very large option. The passage doesn't settle either claim in A.
- B
We only know about the corporate market. Baxe might also dominate some category of residential design, or it might do no residential work at all. We can't turn silence about other markets into a conclusion that it lacks a near monopoly in all of them.
- C
Several small companies winning awards doesn't show that small companies' work is better for the most part. We don't know the quality of everything those firms produce, let alone the work of small firms generally. C makes a broad quality judgment the evidence doesn't establish.
- D
The managers could know perfectly well that a small firm offers a better design and still refuse to hire it. Their stated concern is bankruptcy risk. We don't need to explain the decision by assuming ignorance of better designs when the passage gives us a different reason.
- ECorrect
A better design from a small firm doesn't overcome the managers' refusal to hire firms they consider too risky. That explains why superior designs needn't threaten Baxe's current near monopoly. The advantage protecting Baxe is its size and the managers' confidence in its survival, rather than necessarily the quality of its designs.
This doesn't mean Baxe gets every contract or can never face competition. The conclusion concerns its current position in the market described, where the smaller firms are shut out by the managers' requirement.
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.