Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT110 S2 Q23 Explanation

To be horrific, a monster

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

TopicsMust be True

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

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

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it presents psychological, moral or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears, if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening. In is horrific if it inspires revulsion.

What this question is testing

Must be True

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
23.

Which one of the following logically follows from the

Answer choices

  1. Reversed Logic10% picked this

    Any horror-story monster that is threatening is

    This is just an illegal backwards rendering of the first sentence. 1st sentence: horrific ? threatening This answer: threatening ? horrific (It's also shifting from talking about monsters to talking about monster stories)

  2. Opposite Logic13% picked this

    A monster that is psychologically dangerous, but that does not inspire revulsion,

    This is just doing an illegal "lightswitch" from the last sentence. Last sentence inspires revulsion ? horrific This answer ~inspires revulsion ? ~horrific

  3. Unsupported Relationship14% picked this

    If a monster triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous, then it

    The only tool we have for deriving that a monster is "not horrific" is if it's not threatening. Our first sentence gave us that rule: ~Threatening ? ~Horrific Do we know that a monster that "triggers infantile fears but is not physically dangerous" is "not Threatening"? No clue.

  4. Unsupported Relationship3% picked this

    If a monster is both horrific and psychologically threatening, then it does

    The only tool we have for deriving that something doesn't inspire revulsion is the last sentence: if a benign monster ? doesn't inspire revulsion isn't horrific We clearly can't use that rule for this answer choice, since the answer choice is describing a monster that is horrific.

  5. Correct61% picked this

    All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous and inspire

    Why this is right

    This adds a lot of fluff to what was otherwise our prediction. We knew the first and third sentences chained together to give us this connection: Inspires revulsion ? Horrific ? Threatening This answer must be true, since "any monster that inspires revulsion is threatening". The other details about physical vs. psychological danger are irrelevant to why we're picking this. We just know that "if a monster inspires revulsion, it's threatening", so since the monsters described in this answer choice inspire revulsion, they are therefore threatening.

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

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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