Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S1 · Q23 Linda says that, as a scientist

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

Linda says that, as a scientist, she knows that no scientist appreciates poetry.

Conclusion

Some people who like poetry are illogical.

Evidence (and, since)

No scientist likes poetry. Most scientists are logical.

Evaluate

Because of the quantifiers (some, no, most) and the copycat ideas (scientists, liking poetry, logical), this one is made for diagramming.

One easy thing to check for would be simply to make sure an answer has the right recipe of quantifiers: a Some conclusion, and a Most/None pair of premises.

Do the premises allow us to make an inference? Scientist → ~Like Poetry Most Scientists → Logical

Yes, you know that Most scientists are Logical and Don't Like Poetry.

The actual conclusion is that .

Okay, random. It's not really even worth getting too far in the author's thinking here. The author seems to be taking the upside down version of the facts we know about Scientists and connecting them.

Goal

Conversationally, we can look for a Most and None/All premise that has the same trigger. It will tell us two facts about the same thing (in the original, we learned about Scientists that they don't like poetry and are logical).

And then make sure that the conclusion is talking about the Opposite of those two outcomes (do like poetry and aren't logical).

Symbolically P: No A's are B P: Most A's are C C: Some B's are ~C

Do we care about replicating the "Linda says that ..."? No. It'll probably be in the correct answer, that some source is providing us with our NO premise, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the flaw, so we could take it or leave it.

23.

Which one of the following is most parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning above?

  1. Ralph says that, as an

    Bad Validity Match

    We have a Most / No pair of premises about marsupials. What are the two facts we get? - don't lay eggs - native to Australia We would want our conclusion to be saying "Some things do lay eggs and aren't native to Australia". Instead, this talks about "don't lay eggs and are native to Australia". This is actually a valid conclusion.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    Franz says that, as a

    Why this is right

    We have a Most / No pair of premises about fathers. What are the two facts we get? - don't want kids to eat candy at bedtime - are adults We would want our conclusion to be saying "Some things that do want kids to eat candy at bedtime aren't adults". And that's basically what we get! Children = not adults. (Were these LSAC test writers trying to make it harder to see that this is flawed by writing a conclusion that is so obviously true in real life? Probably.)

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

    69% picked this

  3. Yuri says that, as a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We have a Most / No pair of premises, but they aren't about the same thing. One of them is about "wine aged in metal containers". The other is about "California wine". We can't duplicate the argument unless both premises are about the same "trigger" idea. We're looking for two premises like this P: No A's are B P: Most A's are C This answer gives us two premises like this P: No A's are B P: Most C's are A

    2% picked this

  4. Xi says that, as an

    Bad Validity Match

    We have a Most / No pair of premises, but they aren't about the same thing. One of them is about "color film" The other is about "instant film" We can't duplicate the argument unless both premises are about the same "trigger" idea. We're looking for two premises like this P: No A's are B P: Most A's are C This answer gives us two premises like this P: No A's are B P: Most C's are A

    6% picked this

  5. Betty says that, as a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We have a Most / No pair of premises about corporate executives. What are the two facts we get? - don't like to pay taxes - are honest people We would want our conclusion to be saying "Some things that do like to pay taxes aren't honest people". Instead, this talks about people who "do like to pay taxes and are honest people." It is still a flawed conclusion because the author hasn't proven that overlap (there weren't any premises about people who like to pay taxes, so we can't possibly derive a claim about them), but it only flipped one concept, not both like in the original and in the correct answer. In the original, the conclusion is about people who do appreciate poetry and who are not logical, whereas the evidence only talked about people who don't appreciate poetry and are logical.

    11% 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