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
It's unreasonable to believe that someone has ESP, just because they've had a few vivid dreams that later came true.
The vast majority of a person's dreams do not come true.
This is sort of saying,
We want some sort of argument that's like, .
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
It is unreasonable to believe
This has something resembling the idea of "a few cases vs. most cases", but it would need to sound more like this: "it's unreasonable to believe that new drug X cures heart disease simply because some people's heart disease improved after taking it. After all, the vast majority of people who took it did not see their heart disease improve afterwards." This evidence is saying, "We would need to still test in on a larger number to see whether we get positive or negative evidence", but the original argument already had the negative data --- the vast majority of dreams have already been shown to not come true.
17% picked this
Many people who undergo surgery
We want an argument that pits "the vast majority" against "several" (or something similarly asymmetric like that). This argument is saying, "Even though it works for many, since it doesn't work for many, it's unreasonable to say it's effective." A better match would be "Even though it works for several, since it doesn't work for the vast majority of cases, it's unreasonable to say it's effective."
16% picked this
Even though many cancer patients
This does not have a premise that lines up with "given that the vast majority of cases are like X, it's unreasonable to pretend for these several cases that we're talkin' not-X." It's saying, "Even though X happens many times without Y, that doesn't mean that X's absence caused Y. There are other things at play." That final premise should be "the majority of the time when X is absent, Y is absent."
9% picked this
A number of people who
Why this is right
This has the "weaker quantity vs. stronger quantity" relationship we wanted between evidence and conclusion. Even though a number of people who die early take aspirin, it's unreasonable to say that aspirin is to blame, since a majority of people who take aspirin don't die early. There's more evidence against a given relationship than for it, just as in the original argument there was more evidence against the idea that one's dreams are a form of ESP than for it.
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
50% picked this
A significant number of children
This doesn't quite have a quantity asymmetry. Both "many" and "a significant number" are wishy-washy. They're more than 1, but they can definitely be less than 50%. So we can't really match the original argument's features of having evidence about the vast majority as a way of outweighing different evidence about several. Here we have about evenly stacked evidence for and against, and this conclusion is actually saying it would be unreasonable to deny a causal connection (whereas the original was saying it's unreasonable to infer a causal connection).
8% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.