Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT102 S2 Q22 Explanation

It is an absurd idea that whatever

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

TopicsParallel

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No art without a government subsidy.

What this question is testing

Parallel

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
22.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in

Answer choices

  1. Correct37% picked this

    The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every

    Why this is right

    We do indeed have a conclusion saying that a certain idea, "if X, then Y" is absurd. That idea? driver is not → driver did not arrested break the law And we have a premise just giving us the contrapositive of that idea: driver breaks law → driver gets arrested

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

  2. Bad Premise Match8% picked this

    The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every

    We do indeed have a conclusion saying that a certain idea, "if X, then Y" is absurd. That idea? driver is not → driver did not arrested break the law But the premise isn't supply a contrapositive of that idea. It's doing an illegal negation: driver is arrested → driver did break law

  3. Bad Premise Match Topic Trap21% picked this

    The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it:

    The fact that this answer is also about government support / subsidies / grants makes it more suspicious as an answer, since superficial topic similarities are more how they write trap answers than real ones. We do have a conclusion saying that a certain idea, "if X, then Y" is absurd. That idea? scientist is supported → scientist will by govt. grant be successful But the premise isn't supply a contrapositive of that idea. It's doing an illegal reversal: scientist is → scientist is supported successful by govt. grant

  4. Bad Premise Match Topic Trap14% picked this

    The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it:

    The fact that this answer is also about government support / subsidies / grants makes it more suspicious as an answer, since superficial topic similarities are more how they write trap answers than real ones. We do have a conclusion saying that a certain idea, "if X, then Y" is absurd. That idea? scientist is supported → scientist will by govt. grant be successful But the premise isn't supply a contrapositive of that idea. It's doing an illegal negation: scientist is not supported → scientist will not by govt. grant be successful

  5. Bad Premise Match19% picked this

    The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording

    We do have a conclusion saying that a certain idea, "if X, then Y" is absurd. That idea? scientist is supported → scientist will by govt. grant be successful But the premise isn't supply a contrapositive of that idea. It's throws in a brand new term ("whether or not a scientist is allowed" vs. "whether or not a scientist is successful"): scientist is allowed to → scientist has do research govt. grant

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