Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q23 Only computer scientists understand

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

Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers, and only those who understand the architecture of personal computers appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.

Conclusion (it follows)

Only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.

Evidence

Only computer scientists understand the architecture of the PCs, and only those who understand the architecture of PCs can appreciate the advances in tech made in the last deacde.

Evaluate

We're doing Flaw and we see some conditional indicators ("only" x 3), so we immediately get suspicious of illegal negations or reversals (the most famous of all flaws is the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw in which an author performs an illegal negation or reversal).

The word "only" (and "only if") almost always indicate the necessary condition on the Right of the arrow.

So the first claim looks like this:

Understand → Computer architect of PC's Scientists

The second claim looks like this:

Appreciate Last → Understand Decade's Advances architect of PC's

Whenever we get multiple conditionals, we want to check whether they chain together. These do, since the second half of the 2nd one matches the first half of the 1st one. The whole chain looks like this:

Appreciate Last → Understand → Computer Decade's Advances architect of PC's Scientists

The conclusion, meanwhile, is giving us this:

Computer → Appreciate Last Scientists Decade's Advances

So this is indeed an Illegal Reversal. Being a computer scientist is required in order to appreciate last decade's advances, but being a computer scientist isn't sufficient to prove that you appreciate last decade's advances.

Conversationally, the original argument said, , so it should be concluding, "Thus, only computer scientists can appreciate the advances".

Meanwhile, this conclusion is saying .

Goal

Let's look for an answer describing the formal Necessary vs. Sufficient error, or one saying, .

23.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in the argument?

  1. The argument contains no stated

    Contradicted: no implied relationship

    The first two claims definitely contain an implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in tech, and it looks like this. Appreciate Last ? Understand ? Computer Decade's Advances architect of PC's Scientists The conclusion wasn't wrong for thinking there was a relationship between those two concepts. It was wrong for illegally reversing the implied relationship between them.

    18% picked this

  2. Correct

    The argument ignores the fact

    Why this is right

    Since this answer begins fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in tech made in the last decade"? Yes! That would contradict the conclusion. The conclusion is saying that you can't be a computer scientist unless you appreciate these advances. Isn't it dumb / unfair for our correct answer to just contradict the conclusion? It is dumb. When an author commits a Nec vs. Suff flaw, they are illicitly imagining a conditional that doesn't exist. for example: All NBA players are rich. Bob is rich. Thus he must be an NBA star. This argument is committing the N vs. S flaw. It's also assuming a conditional that doesn't exist: "If rich, then NBA star". The correct answer will sometimes address that by saying "It confused a condition that guarantees you're rich with one that's required to be rich". It will other times address that by simply saying, "It fails to consider that some rich people aren't NBA stars". That second type of answer is demonstrating that the author's illegal conditional was imaginary by stating a counterexample that contradicts it. In this conclusion, the author imagined a connection from "If you're a computer scientist, then you appreciate these advances", and so one way we can point out this fraudulent conditional is by saying the author "fails to consider that some computer scientists don't appreciate these advances".

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

    58% picked this

  3. The argument ignores the fact

    Bad Objection

    Since this answer begins fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- computer scientists may appreciate other things besides advances in tech. Maybe they also like Belgian beers and paddle tennis." No. Pointing out other things that computer scientists also appreciate isn't weakening the argument. The author wasn't saying that the only thing that computer scientists appreciate is advances in tech made in the last decade.

    4% picked this

  4. The premises of the argument

    Not Self-Contradiction

    The situation this answer describes has never been correct answer. The closest we might see to something like this would be an argument where something early on seems to contradict something later on. But this answer sounds more like the two premises contradict each other, which is definitely not the case. Like (A), it would be contradictory to say that the premises exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion. They're set up perfectly to conclude that, "only computer scientists appreciate these advances made in the last decade".

    18% picked this

  5. The premises of the argument

    Not Assumed / Too Strong: everyone Contradicted

    The author definitely isn't assuming that every single person understands the architecture of PCs. The very first claim contradicts that by saying, "only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs".

    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