Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: The government will upgrade sirens if they can't fix the old ones. The old parts company closed. If new sirens are better, we'll be safer.

Conclusion: If the newspaper is correct, the public will be safer during severe weather in the future.

Reasoning: The government will buy new sirens if replacement parts are hard to get; the previous supplier is gone; and the newspaper says new sirens increase safety.

Analysis: There is a logical gap between a company going out of business and the parts being 'difficult to obtain.' Perhaps another company bought the inventory, or a different supplier makes the same parts. For the conclusion to be guaranteed, we must assume that the closure of this specific company actually makes getting the parts difficult. Look for an answer that connects the company's closure directly to the difficulty of obtaining those replacement parts.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

26.

The argument's conclusion follows logically from its premises if which one of the following is assumed?

Correct Answer
D
If the government cannot get parts from last year’s company, then parts will be difficult to obtain. Since that company went out of business, it follows that parts are difficult to obtain, which triggers purchasing new sirens next year. If the newspaper is correct that new sirens enhance safety, then the public will indeed be safer. The conclusion now follows.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep