Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S4 · Q21 All too many weaklings are also

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

All too many weaklings are also cowards, and few cowards fail to be fools.

Evidence

All too many weaklings Many A's are B are also cowards

Most cowards are fools Most B's are C

Conclusion

There must be someone Some A's are C who is both weakling and fool

Evaluate

Hey, I just feel the need to stick up for us weaklings, But I have a feeling that's not what LSAT is testing. :)

We can tell this argument is working off of quantified statements and the conclusion is trying go for some Trait Overlap inference.

However, this is the only time we've seen the quantifier "all too many".

Consider this statement: all too many celebrities have their own clothing line

Am I saying every celebrity has their own clothing line? Am I saying most celebrities (more than 51%)? Am I saying some celebrities (at least one)?

It's a very unspecific quantity, but it's definitely not All or Most. The author is expressing his opinion that too many celebrities have clothing lines. He might think that "one celebrity is already too much". But since that's such an extreme position, it's better to interpret this as "many," which means "at least a handful".

We can be flexible with how the answer presents that quantity since it's so unspecific, but it should probably show up as Some/Many.

Few A's fail to be B = Most A's are B, since "few = less than 50%". If less than half fail to be B, then more than half succeed at being at B.

The argument was flawed because there doesn't have to be any overlap between weaklings and fools. Consider this parallel: All too many celebrities have their own fashion lines. Most fashion lines are created by people with at least a decade of experience making clothes. Thus, some celebrities have at least a decade of experience making clothes.

That doesn't need to be true. 51% (or more) of fashion lines come from people with experience, but it's highly possible that all the celebrity fashion lines are found in that 49% of fashion lines coming from people without 10+ yrs of experience.

Goal

We want two quantified premises that go A to B, B to C, and then a conclusion that thinks there's some overlap between A and C.

P1: Many A's are B P2: Most B's are C C: Some A's are C

21.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

  1. All weasels are carnivores and

    Bad Premise Match Valid Logic

    These premises are All and None. We wanted stuff like Many and Most. Because of the stronger language of the premises, this is actually valid. All W's are C. All C's are N's. Thus, some W's are N's.

    10% picked this

  2. Few moralists have the courage

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is not making a Trait Overlap inference, "Some A's are B". It's making a stronger claim and it's about traits NOT overlapping: "most people can't be both A and B". Most M's don't have the courage. Most S's can't articulate. Thus, most people do not have both the courage and the ability to articulate.

    15% picked this

  3. Correct

    Some painters are dancers, since

    Why this is right

    This is certainly structurally drifting from the original quantifiers, since it's using "some" across the board. But we still get the "A to B / B to C" premises and then a conclusion trying to make a "A to C" trait overlap inference. Also, since (A), (D), and (E) are all airtight arguments, this answer only has to be more similar to the original than (B) to win. Like happens in many correct Parallel answers, the order of ingredients has been scrambled. We need to use the Support Indicator "since" to realize that the first claim is the Conclusion. P1: Some P's are M P2: Some M's are D C: Some P's are D

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

    50% picked this

  4. If an act is virtuous,

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match Valid Logic

    The conclusion here is Conditional, so we can instantly reject this answer and move on. The premises are also conditional, so if we kept reading we would see even more reason to drop this. Finally, the logic is actually valid, not flawed. The conclusion is shown to us indirectly, by the Support Indicator "for". P1: Virtuous → Free P2: Free → Autonomous C: Virtuous → Autonomous

    2% picked this

  5. A majority of the voting

    Weak Premise Match Valid Logic

    The premises here are stronger than the original because we have a Most and No/All. The conclusion does seem to be making a trait overlap inference. But if we analyze the logic we see that it's a valid conclusion to draw. P1: Most voters favor ban. P2: favor ban → not opposed to ST's C: Some voters are not opposed to ST's

    24% 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