Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S2 · Q19 No one in the French department

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

No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term.

Evidence

No one in French department (such as Prof A) can teach more than one intro level class per term.

The only language classes being taught next term are advanced.

Conclusion

It is not the case that both of Prof A's French classes next term will be intro.

Evaluate

Although this argument did have quantifier / conditional terms, there was no overlapping term between the first and second sentence, so this argument probably wouldn't benefit from going symbolic / algebraic.

Do we agree with the logic of the conclusion?

Sure! How could Prof A possibly be teaching two intro French classes next term if the only language classes next term are advanced, and if no one in the French department is allowed to teach more than one intro class per term.

So, it's valid logic. How would we characterize the structure? How do the ingredients combine to get us to the conclusion?

It actually seems like the two premises don't combine; each of one of them on its own would prove that conclusion.

Goal

Look for an argument with two premises, each of which is capable of proving the conclusion.

(The first premise makes it possible that Prof A could be teaching one intro French, but it's still impossible for both of his classes to be intro French.)

19.

The pattern of reasoning displayed in the argument above is most closely paralleled by that in which one of the following arguments?

  1. The Morrison Building will be

    Bad Logic Match

    This is a valid argument, but it derives its conclusion by combining the two premises. A factual premise triggers a conditional rule. Unlike the original argument, this argument has an overlapping term in the two premises (fully occupied). If occupied by May, new tax applies. + MB will be occupied by May. Thus, MB will have new tax apply. We wanted an argument where each premise on its own justified the conclusion.

    3% picked this

  2. The revised tax code does

    Weak 2nd Premise Match

    The first premise, combined with the fact that NB was built in 1873, is enough to derive the conclusion that the revised tax code doesn't apply. But the second premise doesn't by itself justify the conclusion. If we say "built 1900-1920 ? only 1st section applies" and then we add "the NB was built in 1873" we get no inferences, since this fact doesn't trigger that conditional.

    32% picked this

  3. All property on Overton Road

    Trap

    Missing 2nd Form of Proof Bad Conclusion Match The two facts presented are similar to the first sentence of the original argument (which had an embedded 2nd fact that Prof A belongs to the French department). These two facts allow us to derive that Elnor's property taxes will be reassessed by the end of the year, but the conclusion adds an assumption that "if reassessed, then higher". The original argument was airtight, so that's already a logic match. The other big problem is that this answer choice is missing the 2nd premise idea that independently justifies the conclusion.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    New buildings that include public

    Why this is right

    Each of these facts separately justifies the idea that the new building with the large public space in Alton won't be subject to city taxes next year: - new building with public spaces (both apply to this building) aren't taxed for their first two years. - new buildings in Alton are exempt for five years

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

    57% picked this

  5. Since according to recent statute,

    Bad Logic Match

    This one is just like (A). The conclusion is valid, but only by combining a factual premise with a conditional premise. The original argument and (D) had two premises, each of which on its own justified the conclusion.

    6% 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