LSAT Logical Reasoning › Parallel Reasoning
Every successful business has a smart CEO or good customer service. The CEO at John's company is not smart, so the company's customer service must be good.
Which of the following most closely resembles the flawed logic exemplified above?
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball but is not talented, so he must have a good sports agent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball and has a good sports agent, so he must have immense talent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball and has immense talent, so he must have a good sports agent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball. He is not talented, so he must not have a good sports agent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball and has immense talent, so he must be a famous athlete.
The passage states, "Every successful business has a smart CEO or good customer service." It says nothing, however, about whether John's company is successful. Therefore, we can't reasonably deduce that it has good customer service just because the CEO isn't smart.
Similarly, we know that Henry's brother plays baseball, but not that he is a famous athlete. Therefore, just because he does not have talent does not mean that he has a good sports agent.
Every successful business has a smart CEO or good customer service. The CEO at John's company is not smart, so the company's customer service must be good.
Which of the following most closely resembles the flawed logic exemplified above?
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball but is not talented, so he must have a good sports agent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball and has a good sports agent, so he must have immense talent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball and has immense talent, so he must have a good sports agent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball. He is not talented, so he must not have a good sports agent.
Every famous athlete has immense talent or a good sports agent. Henry's brother plays baseball and has immense talent, so he must be a famous athlete.
The passage states, "Every successful business has a smart CEO or good customer service." It says nothing, however, about whether John's company is successful. Therefore, we can't reasonably deduce that it has good customer service just because the CEO isn't smart.
Similarly, we know that Henry's brother plays baseball, but not that he is a famous athlete. Therefore, just because he does not have talent does not mean that he has a good sports agent.
Every successful marriage is built upon trust and compassion. Daniel and Beth do not have a successful marriage. Clearly, they do not trust each other.
Which of the following most closely resembles the flawed reasoning outlined above?
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building is not a skyscraper. It must not have a solid foundation.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building was constructed with a modernist design. It must not be a skyscraper.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building has a classical architectural style. It must have a solid foundation.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building is not a skyscraper. It was not designed with a classical architectural style.
The reasoning in the passage is flawed because it presumes to know which (if either) of the necessary conditions is not satisfied in order for the marriage to be unsuccessful.
Similarly, just because the building does not qualify as a skyscraper does not mean that we know that its foundation is unstable.
It has been scientifically established that all dogs bark. As a result, any animal that barks is a dog. So, if a person hears an animal bark, that person can safely conclude that the animal is a dog.
Which of the following arguments most closely parallels the flawed reasoning above?
All debt that should be avoided is high interest debt because all high interest debt should be avoided. Debt that should be avoided must be high interest debt.
Only high interest debt is debt that should be avoided. Debt that is not high interest should not be avoided.
High interest debt should sometimes be avoided. As a result, some debt that should be avoided is high interest debt. So, a person can safely conclude that high interest debt should be avoided.
All high interest debt should be avoided. Debt that is not high interest need not be avoided. So, people should prefer low interest debt.
If all high interest debt should be avoided, and if some debt is high interest, then some debt should be avoided.
The argument assumes that if all A are B, then all B must be A. That is the central flaw of the argument because it may be true that all dogs bark and that seals also bark. Similarly, although it may be true that all high interest debt should be avoided, there may be other debt that should be avoided as well. It is important to note that the reasoning can be parallell even when the order of the argument may be slightly different.
Every successful marriage is built upon trust and compassion. Daniel and Beth do not have a successful marriage. Clearly, they do not trust each other.
Which of the following most closely resembles the flawed reasoning outlined above?
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building is not a skyscraper. It must not have a solid foundation.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building was constructed with a modernist design. It must not be a skyscraper.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building has a classical architectural style. It must have a solid foundation.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles.
All skyscrapers have a solid foundation and are designed with classical architectural styles. This building is not a skyscraper. It was not designed with a classical architectural style.
The reasoning in the passage is flawed because it presumes to know which (if either) of the necessary conditions is not satisfied in order for the marriage to be unsuccessful.
Similarly, just because the building does not qualify as a skyscraper does not mean that we know that its foundation is unstable.
It has been scientifically established that all dogs bark. As a result, any animal that barks is a dog. So, if a person hears an animal bark, that person can safely conclude that the animal is a dog.
Which of the following arguments most closely parallels the flawed reasoning above?
All debt that should be avoided is high interest debt because all high interest debt should be avoided. Debt that should be avoided must be high interest debt.
Only high interest debt is debt that should be avoided. Debt that is not high interest should not be avoided.
High interest debt should sometimes be avoided. As a result, some debt that should be avoided is high interest debt. So, a person can safely conclude that high interest debt should be avoided.
All high interest debt should be avoided. Debt that is not high interest need not be avoided. So, people should prefer low interest debt.
If all high interest debt should be avoided, and if some debt is high interest, then some debt should be avoided.
The argument assumes that if all A are B, then all B must be A. That is the central flaw of the argument because it may be true that all dogs bark and that seals also bark. Similarly, although it may be true that all high interest debt should be avoided, there may be other debt that should be avoided as well. It is important to note that the reasoning can be parallell even when the order of the argument may be slightly different.
If a wine receives a high score from the National Sommelier Association, it is more likely to be sold in fine-dining restaurants. A new wine from Oregon just received a high score from the National Sommelier Association. Therefore, it is more likely to be sold in fine-dining restaurants.
Which of the following choices most closely reflects the reasoning in the argument above?
Pearls that are larger than average are more likely to retail for a higher price. A pearl diver found a dozen pearls that are much larger than average. Therefore, the pearls are more likely to retail for a higher price.
Older coins are more valuable. Anita has a coin believed to have originated from the colonial era, but lacks any proof. Therefore, it is questionable whether her coin is valuable.
Brighter colors attract more attention. The professor attracts a lot of attention. Therefore, he probably tends to wear more bright colors.
Famous actors tend to appear in popular movies. Popular movies often feature famous actors. Therefore, it is unlikely to find a popular movie without famous actors.
Using recycled materials is beneficial to the environment. Some newspapers only use recycled paper in their products. Therefore, a newspaper is likely to be beneficial to the environment.
The flow of reasoning in the argument is that if X has Y quality, then Z is likely to happen.
In the text,
X = wine
Y = receives a high score from the National Sommelier Association
Z = likely to be sold at fine dining restaurants
The correct answer follows this reasoning:
Pearls that are larger than average are more likely to retail for a higher price. A pearl diver found a dozen pearls that are much larger than average. Therefore, the pearls are more likely to retail for a higher price.
X = pearls
Y = larger than average
Z = more likely to retail at a higher price
If a wine receives a high score from the National Sommelier Association, it is more likely to be sold in fine-dining restaurants. A new wine from Oregon just received a high score from the National Sommelier Association. Therefore, it is more likely to be sold in fine-dining restaurants.
Which of the following choices most closely reflects the reasoning in the argument above?
Pearls that are larger than average are more likely to retail for a higher price. A pearl diver found a dozen pearls that are much larger than average. Therefore, the pearls are more likely to retail for a higher price.
Older coins are more valuable. Anita has a coin believed to have originated from the colonial era, but lacks any proof. Therefore, it is questionable whether her coin is valuable.
Brighter colors attract more attention. The professor attracts a lot of attention. Therefore, he probably tends to wear more bright colors.
Famous actors tend to appear in popular movies. Popular movies often feature famous actors. Therefore, it is unlikely to find a popular movie without famous actors.
Using recycled materials is beneficial to the environment. Some newspapers only use recycled paper in their products. Therefore, a newspaper is likely to be beneficial to the environment.
The flow of reasoning in the argument is that if X has Y quality, then Z is likely to happen.
In the text,
X = wine
Y = receives a high score from the National Sommelier Association
Z = likely to be sold at fine dining restaurants
The correct answer follows this reasoning:
Pearls that are larger than average are more likely to retail for a higher price. A pearl diver found a dozen pearls that are much larger than average. Therefore, the pearls are more likely to retail for a higher price.
X = pearls
Y = larger than average
Z = more likely to retail at a higher price
The local ice cream shop decided to stop offering cappucino-flavored ice cream to its customers. Anna was disappointed by this decision, because cappucino was her favorite ice cream flavor. Therefore, the local ice cream shop intentionally disappointed Anna.
The flawed reasoning above most closely resembles the reasoning in which of the following arguments:
Becca intentionally planted her flowers in the sun. Unfortunately, these particular flowers prefer shade, so the intense sunlight killed the flowers. Therefore, Becca intentionally killed her flowers.
Brittany stole 12.00 from Lindsey and bet it in Vegas. Then Brittany won 200.00 in Vegas. Therefore, Brittany actually stole 200.00 from Lindsey.
The lightning caused the power to go out, and the power outage caused the meat in the refrigerator to spoil. Therefore, the lightning caused the meat in the refrigerator to spoil.
Laura knows that Dungeness Crab is caught in Humboldt Bay, and that Humboldt Bay is in Northern California. Therefore Laura should know that dungeness crab is caught in Northern California.
The treatment plant increased the chlorine in the water, and whatever increased the chlorine in the water is responsible for the decrease in the frog population. Therefore, the treatment plant is responsible for the decrease in the frog population.
The flawed argument states that performing an intentional act led to a certain consequence, and draws the incorrect conclusion that the consequence itself was therefore intended. Similarly, the correct answer choice confuses an intentional act that resulted in a negative consequence with the intent to bring about that consequence.
The local ice cream shop decided to stop offering cappucino-flavored ice cream to its customers. Anna was disappointed by this decision, because cappucino was her favorite ice cream flavor. Therefore, the local ice cream shop intentionally disappointed Anna.
The flawed reasoning above most closely resembles the reasoning in which of the following arguments:
Becca intentionally planted her flowers in the sun. Unfortunately, these particular flowers prefer shade, so the intense sunlight killed the flowers. Therefore, Becca intentionally killed her flowers.
Brittany stole 12.00 from Lindsey and bet it in Vegas. Then Brittany won 200.00 in Vegas. Therefore, Brittany actually stole 200.00 from Lindsey.
The lightning caused the power to go out, and the power outage caused the meat in the refrigerator to spoil. Therefore, the lightning caused the meat in the refrigerator to spoil.
Laura knows that Dungeness Crab is caught in Humboldt Bay, and that Humboldt Bay is in Northern California. Therefore Laura should know that dungeness crab is caught in Northern California.
The treatment plant increased the chlorine in the water, and whatever increased the chlorine in the water is responsible for the decrease in the frog population. Therefore, the treatment plant is responsible for the decrease in the frog population.
The flawed argument states that performing an intentional act led to a certain consequence, and draws the incorrect conclusion that the consequence itself was therefore intended. Similarly, the correct answer choice confuses an intentional act that resulted in a negative consequence with the intent to bring about that consequence.