Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT104 S1 Q25 Explanation

When interviewing job candidates,

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

TopicsFlaw

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

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

When interviewing job candidates, personnel managers not only evaluate a candidate’s work experience and educational background but also inquire about hobbies. Personnel managers try to justify these inquiries by noting that the enthusiasm someone shows for a hobby may well carry over to enthusiasm for a job. But such enthusiasm may also play. Therefore personnel managers should not inquire about a candidate’s hobbies.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that 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
25.

The argument is flawed because it overlooks each of the following

Answer choices

  1. Weakens6% picked this

    A candidate’s involvement in particular hobbies may indicate a capacity to

    This points to a potential positive about asking about hobbies. The author has only considered one potential downside and on that basis forbade the practice of asking about hobbies. She's failing to consider the Net Gain / Loss of this practice. One benefit could be that someone who is invested in a hobby is more likely to be a committed long-term employee (managers hate employee turnover; they prize retention. so this is an important trait to someone hiring a new employee).

  2. Correct72% picked this

    Candidates who have no hobbies may pretend that they have one when asked

    Why this is right

    This points to a potential negative about asking about hobbies. The applicant may be tempted to lie about it. That would mean that the personnel manager isn't even getting accurate information to base their decision on. That would only strengthen the author's notion that personnel managers shouldn't inquire about hobbies.

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

  3. Weakens5% picked this

    Inquiries about a hobby may put candidates at ease, eliciting more honest responses

    This points to a potential positive about asking about hobbies. The author has only considered one potential downside and on that basis forbade the practice of asking about hobbies. She's failing to consider the Net Gain / Loss of this practice. One benefit could be asking about hobbies is an effective form of small talk that takes candidates out of their stressed out "interview character" and allows the manager to see the real person. Specifically, it allows the personnel manager to get more honest answers to important questions. Getting good data on important queries is a valuable advantage that "asking about hobbies" can provide.

  4. Weakens3% picked this

    Having certain kinds of hobbies may indicate that a candidate has

    Like (A), this points to a potential positive about asking about hobbies. People who have hobbies might have a desirable trait. (A) talked about long-term commitment to the job. (D) talks about good organizational skills.

  5. Weakens14% picked this

    Personnel managers may make better choices among candidates if they are not restricted from asking

    This points to a potential positive about asking about hobbies. One benefit could be that it makes the interviewer a better interviewer. If they're free to ask about hobbies, they don't feel the need to self-regulate the conversation as much and can make better choices. When there are "rules" about what the interviewer can /can't say, the interviewer is too lost thinking about those rules and makes worse choices. This is definitely a weird storyline, but we're supposed to accept these answers as true. If being allowed to ask about hobbies allows the interviewer to make better choices then it carries an advantage the author failed to consider.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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