medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A high-end restaurant chain recently replaced its expensive cloth napkins with high-quality paper ones. Management argued that because the paper napkins are much cheaper to purchase and require no laundering, the chain's operating expenses will decrease. A critic responds that this is unlikely, because the restaurant will now have to purchase a far larger volume of napkins than before.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the critic's objection to management's claim?
- Even counting the larger quantities bought and discarded, the paper napkins' total cost falls below the combined cost of buying and laundering cloth.
- The restaurant chain has recently raised the menu prices of several of its single most popular signature appetizers across nearly all of its locations.
- Laundering the cloth napkins each night requires industrial detergents and various chemicals that can be genuinely harmful to the surrounding environment.
- Many of the regular patrons of high-end dining establishments distinctly prefer the heavier, softer feel of cloth napkins to that of any paper ones.
- The paper napkins are produced by an outside supplier that also manufactures the restaurant chain's own branded takeout containers and to-go bags.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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