Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S2 · Q22 One can be at home

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

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one's house at all.

Conclusion

Being at home is not required for being in your own house (i.e. it's possible to be in your own house, but not at home)

Evidence

You can be in your house but not at your home, if you own the house but rent it to others, for example. (That's your house. You own the deed. But you're just visiting your tenant. It's their home.)

Evaluate

On a first read, I would have certainly thought that each of the first two sentences were premises, but the first one is actually irrelevant.

The conclusion is a denying this conditional relationship: being in house ---requires---> being at home

In any context, when we're contradicting / negating / refuting a conditional statement, we're saying .

So in order for the author to prove that "being at home isn't required", she just has to produce an example where someone is in their house, but isn't at home.

The first sentence is about being at home, but not in your house. That's unrelated. That you would prove that .

Goal

We want to classify the role of the claim as either Main Conclusion, something Supporting, something Opposing, or something Neutral.

Since the conclusion is the last sentence and the support is the second sentence, we'll just call this first sentence Neutral.

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 being in one's house?

The claim is required to
Not Required
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.
36% picked this
The claim represents the point
Not Opposing
The claim the conclusion is trying to refute is this: "being at home is required for being at your house"
3% picked this
Correct
The claim is compatible with
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. (update: there is another role question just like this one.)
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
42% picked this
The claim points out an
Not an Ambiguity
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
17% picked this
The claim inadvertently contradicts the
No Contradiction
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.
2% 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