Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q22 Congenial guests and a plentiful

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

Congenial guests and a plentiful supply of good things to eat and drink will ensure a successful dinner party.

Conclusion

Sylvia's dinner party is certain to be a success!

Evidence

Congenial Plentiful Supply of → Successful Guests + Good Food/Drink Dinner Party

Sylvia's got more than enough to eat and drink, and her guests are all congenial people.

Evaluate

Man, Sylvia needs this party to go well, after the debacle last month with the fondue picnic.

This argument seems very sound. If you have two things, you have a successful party. Sylvia has those two things: congenial guests and plenty of food/drink.

But, wait, didn't the argument say this argument had flawed reasoning? What are we missing?

Have they clearly established Sylvia will have congenial guests? - yes, her guests are all congenial people

Have they clearly established that Sylvia has a plentiful supply of good things to eat and drink? - it said, she has more than enough to eat and drink

Oh, those rascals. It establishes she has a "plentiful supply of things to eat and drink", but the rule demands a plentiful supply of good things.

Goal

Look for an answer that has a conditional premise, and then some facts that almost trigger it (but some modifier or qualifier is missing from one of them), and then the conclusion will announce that the outcome is true.

22.

The pattern of flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?

  1. The right ingredients, properly combined

    Bad Conclusion Match Valid

    The quickest way to eliminate this is to glance at the conclusion, the very last claim and see that it's a conditional claim. The original conclusion wasn't conditional, so we know this will be wrong. This says, Right Properly Baked in well baked ingredients + combined + Reliable O ? cake We know she has the first two things, and the conclusion says, if she has 3rd thing, then success This is not only a structural mismatch, it's also a valid argument.

    7% picked this

  2. If corn is baked with

    Weak Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match

    The conditional has an "and" in the outcome, whereas the original argument had the "and" in the trigger. That would already make me bail and only revisit this if everything else was bad. Baked w/ husks ? Moist and Sweet To even have a chance at being a match for the original, we would need a fact that almost triggers "baked with husks", and then a conclusion that says "thus, moist and sweet". The conclusion here is "baked with husks", so this one is hopeless.

    2% picked this

  3. Making pie dough using ice

    Valid

    This has a conditional premise with an "and" on the left. This says that if you meet two criteria 1. use ice water to make dough 2. chill the dough before rolling it then you'll definitely get a flaky crust. Andrew did both 1 and 2, so it is valid to conclude that he'll get a flaky crust.

    42% picked this

  4. Correct

    If soup is made with

    Why this is right

    This has a conditional premise with an "and" in the trigger. Well-seasoned Fresh Welcome meat stock + ingredients ? at dinner The premises almost establish the two conditions: - he's got only fresh ingredients - he's got meat stock But is it well-seasoned ? ! ? !

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

    47% picked this

  5. Fresh greens, carefully washed and

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    This lays out a rule with 3 things that together trigger a refreshing salad. - fresh greens - carefully washed - light dressing We would want the argument to almost establish all three and then conclude "refreshing salad". Instead it's saying that one of the things won't happen and concluding that "refreshing salad" won't happen. This is flawed, but it's not the same flaw and not a structural match.

    2% 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