Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q17 Whenever a company loses a major

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

Whenever a company loses a major product-liability lawsuit, the value of the company’s stocks falls significantly within hours after the announcement.

Conclusion (Therefore)

We can be sure that an Cotoy lost their lawsuit earlier today.

Evidence

Whenever a company loses a big product-liability lawsuit, the value of its stocks fall quickly in value within hours after the announcement of the verdict.

Cotoy has been involved in a big product-liability lawsuit, and its stocks fell quickly in value today.

Evaluate

If we're going Flaw or Parallel Flaw and we see conditional logic, we immediately start to suspect that the flaw will be a Necessary vs. Sufficient error (which just means that the author presents a conditional logic rule, but then uses it in some illegal backwards or inverted fashion to reach his conclusion).

The rule we were given here was signified by "Whenever", which is a Sufficient (left side) indicator.

Sufficient Indicators if, when, whenever, whoever, wherever, all, any, each, every, the only

The rule is saying

lose a big lawsuit → stock value drops

The author's argument goes backwards: Since ... Cotoy's stock value dropped today, we can conclude ... Cotoy lost a big lawsuit today.

Goal

In conversational terms, we can look for a correct answer in which a conditional rule is presented and the author tries to use it in reverse to draw her conclusion.

In more symbolic / algebraic terms, we're looking for something like this:

Prem 1: If X, then Y Prem 2: Y was true for Thing A. Conc: X was true for Thing B.

17.

Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning that most closely parallels that in the argument above?

  1. Whenever a business treats its

    Bad Evidence Match

    We are given a conditional treat customers badly ? customers shop elsewhere To match the original argument, we would want to hear a 2nd premise that says "Shopwell's customers have begun to shop elsewhere" and then a Conclusion that says "Thus, Shopwell's employees must have started to treat its customers discourteously." Instead, this argument basically uses valid logic, via the contrapositive. Since they don't want customers to shop elsewhere, they should not treat customers discourteously.

    1% picked this

  2. Whenever the large airlines decrease

    Bad Evidence Match

    The easiest way to know this one is off is that there's only one Premise (whereas the original one had two). We are given a conditional large airline ? financials of smaller decreases fare competitors suffers To match the original argument, we would want to hear a 2nd premise that says "recently, the financial stability of smaller airlines has been adversely affected" and then a Conclusion that says "Thus, a large airline must have recently decreased its fare."

    6% picked this

  3. Whenever a country shows a

    Bad Evidence Match

    The easiest way to know this one is off is that there's only one Premise (whereas the original one had two). We are given a conditional shows lack of leadership ? respect for country's on international issues policies declines To match the original argument, we would want to hear a 2nd premise that says "recently, respect for a certain country's policy has declined" and then a Conclusion that says "Thus, that country must have recently showed a lack of leadership on international issues".

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Whenever an entering student at

    Why this is right

    This gives us our 1st (conditional) premise, then our conclusion signified by Therefore, then our 2nd (factual) premise signified by Because. We are given a conditional entering student at CC ? receives $10k wins Perf Fellowship from school To match the original argument, we would want to hear a 2nd premise that says "recently, someone received $10k from school", which we do in the final claim. Eula got $10k. So the conclusion should say, "thus, Eula won the Perf Fellowship", which it does. Just like the original, it's going backwards on the conditional rule. The author thinks that if something matches the outcome of the rule then the trigger must follow.

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

    82% picked this

  5. Whenever a company advertises its

    Valid Logic

    We are given a conditional advertises products ? company's sales effectively increase To match the original argument, we would want to hear a 2nd premise that says, "recently, a certain company's sales have increased", and then a Conclusion that says "Thus, products were advertised effectively". Instead, this argument is actually reasoning validly through the contrapositive. It's saying that since the Outcome of the rule isn't the case (the sales have not increased) that the Trigger must not be the case (the company didn't advertise effectively).

    10% 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