Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q20 Anyone who insists that music videos

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

Anyone who insists that music videos are an art form should also agree that television gave rise to an art form, since television gave rise to music videos.

Conclusion

Anyone who insists that If you believe music videos are an art X is a type of Y form

should also agree that you should believe TV gave rise to an art form Z gave rise to Y

Evidence

Television gave rise Z gave rise to X to music videos.

Evaluate

Because of the repeating symbols (TV / art form / music videos all mentioned twice), it's felicitous to diagram this one.

The conclusion is an Implication of Belief type claim:

What's the relationship between A and B?

A: X is a type of Y B: Z gave rise to Y

What's the premise? Z gave rise to X.

The two beliefs being connected have an overlapping ingredient, Y. (art form) The premise connects the non-overlapping parts of the two beliefs (TV / music videos)

Goal

Look for an argument that concludes a connection between two ideas, based on a premise that links together the non-overlapping ideas from the two beliefs.

In a looser sense, we might just get an argument representing the same logic, but without the context of it being "if you believe A, you believe B".

It might feel more like, Conclusion: If A is X, then A is Y. Premise: X is Y.

20.

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

  1. Anyone who claims that all

    No Premise

    This is just a claim, not an argument. It just says "anyone who believes A should believe B." Why? No support offered.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    Anyone who holds that avocados

    Why this is right

    The conclusion talks about the implication of a belief, and the premise connects the non-overlapping ideas in that pair of beliefs. Conclusion: If you believe "A is an F", you should believe "P is lower than some F" Premise: P is lower than A

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

    72% picked this

  3. Anyone who dislikes tomatoes should

    No Premise

    This is just one big conditional dislike tomatoes should agree some and ? people do like tomatoes agree no taste is universal Why should we believe that relationship? No supporting ideas were offered.

    2% picked this

  4. A person who eats a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion is not a conditional connecting one belief to another. And it's not sure of itself, the way the original conditional conclusion was. The conclusion just says: someone who is X is probably Y Not worth investing more effort with that mismatch.

    9% picked this

  5. A person who claims to

    Two Premises

    It's not a good sign that this has two premises, since the original only had one. We do have a conclusion that connects two beliefs / preferences. Conclusion: if you prefer F > V, you should prefer C > B This is already bad ... the two beliefs in the original argument had an overlapping idea, art form. The two beliefs in the correct answer have an overlapping idea, fruit. This conclusion connects four different ideas, rather than 3 ideas, one of them overlapping. So there's no way the logic is going to match up.

    16% 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