Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q24 Only if a family manages

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

Only if a family manages its finances wisely will it obtain fiscal security.

Evidence

Fiscal → Manage finances security (requires) wisely

Functional → Realistic projections budget (requires) of $ obligations

Conclusion (So)

Fiscal security manage finance wisely or → or Functional budg realistic $ obligations

Evaluate

Because we see conditional logic (only if, without, if) and repeating ideas (2 mentions each of functional budget, manage finances, realistic projections, and fiscal security), we would probably want to convert this argument until an algebraic recipe.

Goal

Prem 1: X → Y Prem 2: A → B Conc: X or A → Y or B

The quickest thing to scan for at a bird's eye view is probably that we have two conditional premises, and that the conclusion is a conditional, whose trigger is composed of the two triggers from the premises.

24.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to that in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Without continued use of pesticides

    Why this is right

    Prem 1: X ? Y growing ? continued use enough food (requires) of pesticides Prem 2: A ? B persistent health ? develop pesticides problems reduced (req's) harmless to humans Conc: X or A ? Y or B enough food produced pesticides continue or ? or persistent HP's reduced develop harmless p's This argument also provided two conditional premises, and the conclusion again was saying "if either one of these triggers is true, then one or more of these outcomes must be true".

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

    73% picked this

  2. Reasonably healthy people who wish

    Weak Conclusion Match

    The original argument's conclusion was a conditional with an "or" in the trigger. This conclusion has an "and" in the trigger. We would write the conclusion like this: wishes to lose weight should seek and ? medical guidance doesn't want to risk HP's b4 begin program That's enough to disqualify this answer. For what it's worth the two premises were like this: wish to lose weight alter balance of and ? caloric intake reasonably healthy and burn off drastic change in diet or exercise ? harmful and no medical supervision By seeing these conditionals, we can further confirm how off the conclusion is. Its trigger should be a combination of these two triggers, and its outcome should be a combination of the two outcomes.

    7% picked this

  3. Many popular, low-maintenance houseplants are

    Bad Premise Match

    The conclusion is a conditional with an "or" trigger and an "or" outcome, so it's worth investigating. But neither of the premises are conditional claims (many, some), so we can bail from this.

    12% picked this

  4. Only employees who work diligently

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The original conclusion was a conditional with an "or" in the trigger and an "or" in the outcome. This conclusion is a conditional without only one idea in the trigger, and with an "and" in the outcome. That's enough reason to bail, given that we already have an answer that has a matching conclusion. We might also notice that the trigger in the conclusion "redesign process is carried out" was not the trigger of either one of the premises' conditionals.

    5% picked this

  5. A successful charity drive requires

    Weak Conclusion Match

    The original conclusion was a conditional with an "or" in the trigger and an "or" in the outcome. This conclusion is a conditional without only one idea in the trigger, but it does have an "or" in the outcome. If we'd already seen (A), we probably wouldn't look any deeper than that and would just bail. If we look deeper, we notice that the trigger in the conclusion "organizing a charity drive" was not the trigger of either one of the premises' conditionals. So it definitely doesn't match.

    3% 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