Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q15 Rhonda will see the movie tomorrow

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

Rhonda will see the movie tomorrow afternoon only if Paul goes to the concert in the afternoon.

Conclusion (So)

Rhonda will not see the movie tomorrow afternoon.

Evidence

Rhonda will see it tomorrow afternoon only if Paul goes to the afternoon concert. Paul will not go unless Ted goes. But Ted refuses to go.

Evaluate

When we're doing Parallel and we see conditional logic, then it's usually beneficial to write up the algebraic recipe of what we're looking for. We can see that the first two sentences / premises are conditionals. The third sentence / premise is a fact. And the the conclusion is a fact.

P1: R movie only if P concert Rm → Pc P2: no Pc unless Tc Pc → Tc P3: no Tc. ~Tc. C: no R. ~R.

The two premises chain together, Rm → Pc → Tc The contrapositive chain would say ~Tc → ~Pc → ~Rm

The 3rd claim, the factual premise, gives us the trigger of that contrapositive chain: ~Tc.

The conclusion gives us the outcome of that contrapositive chain: ~Rm.

Goal

We need two premises that chain together A → B B → C

Then we need a premise saying "not C" and a conclusion saying "not A"

15.

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

If Janice comes to visit,
Bad Premise Match: no chain
These two conditional premises don't form a chain. They start from the same trigger: J visits → ~Mary pays J visits → J finds babysitter
3% picked this
Correct
Gary will do his laundry
Why this is right
We need two premises that chain together A → B B → C G laundry → P work P work → C ill Then we need a premise saying "not C" C is not ill and a conclusion saying "not A" G not laundry The hardest part of this answer is dealing with the second conditional. We know that "unless" means "If-not" and that you can do the "if-not" to either idea in the sentence. So we can choose to write it as If Cathy is not ill, Peter will not have to work. or write is as If Peter will not not have to work, Cathy is ill. The double negative gives us, If Peter will have to work, Cathy is ill.
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% picked this
Kelly will barbecue fish tonight
Bad Premise Match: only 1 conditional
This argument only has that one conditional in the first sentence, so we're not going to get the two conditionals chaining together that we had in the original.
3% picked this
Lisa will attend the family
Bad Premise Match: only 1 conditional
This argument only has that one conditional in the first sentence, so we're not going to get the two conditionals chaining together that we had in the original.
4% picked this
George will not go to
Bad Premise/Conclusion Match
This argument does have two conditional premises that chain together: G museum → M museum M museum → postpone most The next two ingredients we would need to hear are, "But Mark will not postpone most of his appointments. So George will not go to the museum." However, the premise says Mark postponed some of his appointments, and the conclusion says Mark will not go to the museum.
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