Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT108 S2 Q22 Explanation

One can be at home

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one's house at all. One can also be in one's house but not at home, if one owns the house but rents it out to others, for example. required for one's being in one's own house.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
22.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument's conclusion and its claim that one can be at home without

Answer choices

  1. Not Required36% picked this

    The claim is required to establish

    Not only is the first sentence not required for the conclusion; it actually doesn't have any strengthening effect on the conclusion at all, other than maybe creating some doubt that the terms "home" and "house" are interchangeable. The conclusion needs evidence that someone can be in their house but not at home, and the first sentence is about someone who is at home.

  2. Not Opposing3% picked this

    The claim represents the point the conclusion is intended

    The claim the conclusion is trying to refute is this: "being at home is required for being at your house"

  3. Correct41% picked this

    The claim is compatible with the truth or falsity of

    Why this is right

    Weird, weird answer. I've never seen a role question quite like this one. But since the first sentence was irrelevant to what the conclusion is trying to prove, it's fair to call it compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Had the first sentence said, "Never put mustard in a bowling ball", it would have also been compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

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

  4. Not an Ambiguity18% picked this

    The claim points out an ambiguity in the phrase

    This argument is showing how there is a distinction between being at home and being in your house, but that doesn't mean there's any ambiguity. Being at home = at your residence / where you sleep and where your belongings are Being in your house = inside a residential property you own

  5. No Contradiction2% picked this

    The claim inadvertently contradicts the

    The first sentence is irrelevant / neutral to the conclusion; it doesn't contradict it. Contradicting the conclusion would be saying that "Every single time you're in your house, you are at home". The first sentence definitely doesn't say that.

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