hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city council debates whether to ban food trucks from operating within 200 feet of brick-and-mortar restaurants. Claim [1]: Restaurant owners argue that food trucks impose unfair competition because trucks pay far lower fixed costs, such as property tax and long-term lease obligations. Claim [2]: An economist on the council responds that lower fixed costs do not by themselves establish unfairness, since the relevant question for policy is whether food trucks and restaurants are competing to serve genuinely substitutable consumer demand, and survey data show most food-truck customers are buying a quick meal they would not otherwise have purchased from a sit-down restaurant at all.
What is the logical role of Claim [1] in the argument?
- It is a premise the economist accepts but treats as insufficient for the conclusion.
- It is the economist's own conclusion about whether to enact the food-truck ban.
- It is evidence the economist shows to be factually false by citing the survey data.
- It is a definition of unfair competition that the economist adopts without modification.
- It is background information that has no bearing on the economist's response.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?