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 after accounting for the larger quantities purchased and discarded, the total cost of the paper napkins falls well below the combined cost of buying and laundering the cloth ones.
- The restaurant chain has recently raised the prices of its most popular appetizers.
- Laundering cloth napkins requires chemicals that can be harmful to the environment.
- Many patrons of high-end restaurants prefer the feel of cloth napkins to paper ones.
- The paper napkins are manufactured by a supplier that also produces the chain's takeout containers.
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?