Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT105 S2 Q14 Explanation

The reasoning in Arjun’s response

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Yolanda: Gaining access to computers without authorization and manipulating the data and programs they contain is comparable to joyriding in stolen cars; both involve breaking into private property and treating it recklessly. Joyriding, however, is the more dangerous crime because it is harmed in the case of computer crimes.

Arjun: I disagree! For example, unauthorized use of medical records systems in hospitals could damage data systems on which human lives depend, and therefore physical harm to people.

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
14.

The reasoning in Arjun’s response is flawed

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Complaint26% picked this

    fails to maintain a distinction made in

    The only distinction Yolanda made was that joyriding is more dangerous than hacking. Yes, Arjun fails to maintain that distinction, but that's because his conclusion is to disagree with it, so we wouldn't fault him for having a conclusion that opposes someone else's position.

  2. Contradicted6% picked this

    denies Yolanda’s conclusion without providing evidence

    Arjun provides evidence, starting with the words "For example, ..."

  3. Correct47% picked this

    relies on the actuality of a phenomenon that he has only shown

    Why this is right

    This answer is testing a distinction that showed up a handful of times on older tests: Possible vs. Certain Arjun's premise is that "hacking hospitals could damage the data systems on which human lives depend", and then from that he concludes that "computer crimes cause physical harm to people". To make a grotesque analogy, I could say "a lipstick applicator could be jammed into someone's trachea, clogging their air passageway and suffocating them. Therefore, lipstick applicators also kill people."

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

  4. Wrong Flaw15% picked this

    mistakes something that leads to his conclusion for something that is necessary

    This language belongs to the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise and then illegally applies it in a Backwards or Opposite fashion. There was no conditional logic in Arjun's argument, so this can't possibly match.

  5. Wrong Flaw6% picked this

    uses as evidence a phenomenon that is inconsistent with his

    The language of "evidence is inconsistent with conclusion" (or with other evidence) belongs to the famous Internal Contradiction flaw, which is almost never correct. Arjun didn't contradict himself.

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