Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S2 · Q2 No one wants this job as much as

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

No one wants this job as much as Joshua does, but he is not applying for it.

Conclusion (it follows that)

No matter how high a salary is offered, no one will apply for this job.

Evidence

No one wants this job as much as Josh, and he's not applying for it.

Evaluate

Uhh, if the salary is $1 million / year, I might like to apply. Can I hear the job description?

This argument is clearly silly, since even if Josh doesn't want this job, one of us might (especially given the conclusion's range of "no matter how high the salary"). But how do we put this into something abstract and portable.

The copycat ideas are This job / Josh / applying.

We could try to translate the argument as written.

P: No one wants X as much as Y. P: Y isn't doing Z. C: so no one will be doing Z.

Or we might say something more generic like:

P: No one wants X as much as Y. P: Y isn't pursuing X. C: so no one will pursue X.

Or an even more gisty version: P: the Person You'd Most Expect isn't doing it C: so no one's gonna do it

Goal

Let's look for an argument saying that, . If we have multiple contenders, we'll get even more picky with the form.

2.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following?

  1. Beth knows better than anyone

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The premise ain't so bad, since it could definitely fit into "Since the person you'd most expect [to spot an error] hasn't done so ..." But the matching conclusion we'd need is, "then NOBODY's gonna be able to spot an error." This takes a completely diff turn and says, "Beth will eventually spot the error; it's just later in the program"

    6% picked this

  2. If anyone can decipher this

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The premise works, since it's saying "Since the person you'd most expect [to decipher this incription] can't do so ..." But the matching conclusion we'd need is, "then NOBODY's gonna be able to decipher this insciprtion." But instead, this says "We'll have to ask someone else."

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    Although he has the strongest

    Why this is right

    The premise is saying "Since the person you'd most expect [to buy Anna's plot of land] isn't pursuing it," And so we'd want the conclusion to say, "then NOBODY's gonna buy it" And that is what is says, in pretentious LSAT-speak! This even preserved the "no matter how tempting you make it financially" part of the original conclusion.

    Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    89% picked this

  4. The person initially most interested

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The premise works, since it's saying "Since the person you'd most expect [to obtain the contract] isn't pursuing it ..." But the matching conclusion we'd need is, "then NOBODY's gonna pursue the contract." But instead, this says "Everyone else will pursue it twice as hard."

    3% picked this

  5. Three times Paul would have

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    This doesn't work on any level. Paul isn't identified as "the most likely suspect" for something. And the conclusion isn't a prediction that "no one will do [something]". It's a volume dial expression: the more X, the more Y.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free