LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 6031
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#104159
Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (E).

The stimulus contains a fact set.

Answer choice (A): There's no mention of profit in the stimulus and thus we can make no inference about Gahagan’s profitability.

Answer choice (B): The word "never" is too strong here, and there could be some wholesale buyers who come back and buy gardening implements.

Answer choice (C): We only know the majorities (percentages) of who purchases what; we do not know the actual numbers, and thus we cannot infer that there are more commercial buyers than home gardeners.

Answer choice (D): While this is possible, it is not known that it must be the case, and thus this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This must be the case because most of the plants are sold to landscape contractors. Why? Because LSAC intends for the "them" in that second sentence to refer to plants. It's confusing wording and I don't love how they've done that, but that then means that "Gahagan’s Greenstore sells a large volume of plants...most of them to landscape contractors." At that point it is more likely that a plant purchased there was purchased by a landscape contractor.

As an aside, if they meant "them" to refer back to "commercial buyers, " I believe they would have said something like, "The vast majority are sold wholesale to commercial buyers, most of whom are landscape contractors."
User avatar
 duduburger
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Sep 15, 2024
|
#109015
Hi, I don't understand why E is the correct answer (even though I chose it because it seems like the only reasonable choice)
my diagram is like this:
P -most-> CB -most> LC
GI -most-> HG

From this, I can't deduce (E) because it could be that LC gets 51%*51% = 26% of plants while HG gets 49% of plants.
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 6031
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
|
#109019
Hi, I added an explanation above. LSAC intends for the "them" in that second sentence to refer to the plants. It's confusing wording and I don't love how they've done that, but that then means that "Gahagan’s Greenstore sells a large volume of plants...most of them to landscape contractors." At that point it is more likely that a plant purchased there was purchased by a landscape contractor.

Fwiw, if they meant it as you interpreted, I believe they would have said something like, "The vast majority are sold wholesale to commercial buyers, most of whom are landscape contractors."
User avatar
 duduburger
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Sep 15, 2024
|
#109086
Thank you!
Dave Killoran wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2024 1:49 pm Hi, I added an explanation above. LSAC intends for the "them" in that second sentence to refer to the plants. It's confusing wording and I don't love how they've done that, but that then means that "Gahagan’s Greenstore sells a large volume of plants...most of them to landscape contractors." At that point it is more likely that a plant purchased there was purchased by a landscape contractor.

Fwiw, if they meant it as you interpreted, I believe they would have said something like, "The vast majority are sold wholesale to commercial buyers, most of whom are landscape contractors."
User avatar
 Aspiring-Logicl-Rsnr
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: May 03, 2025
|
#112990
Hi!

I got this right but didn't love E because it seems to assume that landscape contractors and home gardeners are mutually exclusive (no representation for all the landscape contractors who carefully maintain beautiful home gardens!!). I realize it's a "most strongly supported" question, which might allow it to be imperfect in that way. I'm wondering, though: have there been, off the top of your head, questions on the LSAT where assuming that two groups are mutually exclusive is, in fact, a flaw? In other words, should I remain wary of this sort of thing?

Thanks for your help.
User avatar
 Jeff Wren
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: Oct 19, 2022
|
#113039
Hi Aspiring,

Yes, assuming that two groups are mutually exclusive when they may not actually be is a flaw and you should remain wary of this.

In fact, that exact flaw has appeared as a wrong answer in several flaw questions and as a correct answer on a flaw question from the June 1997 LSAT (formerly Preptest 22). (I won't mention the specific question number because I wouldn't want to spoil the question for those who haven't done it.)

That being said, Answer E's assumption that plants purchased by landscape contractors aren't also plants purchased by home gardeners isn't necessarily a flaw here. While it is certainly possible that landscape contractors can also be home gardeners, in terms of for whom/why the plants are being purchased, these would be two different groups. In other words, if a landscape contractor is purchasing a plant for someone else in the role of a professional landscape contractor, that sale would be considered a sale to a landscape contractor and not a sale to a home gardener, even if that contractor happens to also be a home gardener. The sale wasn't specifically to/for a home gardener; it was to a landscape contractor for the purpose of doing commercial landscaping for someone else. (The fact that the landscape contractor also happens to be a home gardener isn't really relevant to how the sale should be classified as commercial, not personal/home garden use.)

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.