Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S2 · Q23 To be horrific, a monster

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

To be horrific, a monster must be threatening.

Statements

We have three sentences, and each is a conditional. The first sentence uses the structure "to be X, you must be Y". We could rephrase that as "X requires Y" and the word requires is the same as the conditional arrow. The 2nd and 3rd sentences use an "if" on the 2nd half of the sentence, but wherever we see the "if" condition, we put that condition on the left of the conditional arrow.

Horrific monster → Threatening

Physically dangerous → Threatening

Inspires revulsion → Horrific monster

Evaluate

Since we were given more than one conditional, we're looking to see whether any of them chain together. (Had we been given any facts, we would look also to see whether we could apply any of these rules to the provided fact)

In order for two rules to chain together, they need the Same idea on Opposite sides of the arrow, or they need Opposite ideas on the Same side of the arrow.

The first two rules have the Same idea (threatening), but it's on the same side of the arrow. So those don't chain.

The first and third rule have the Same idea (horrific monster) on opposite sides of the arrow (the first rule has it on the left, the third rule has it on the right).

So the first and third rule chain together

Inspires revulsion → Horrific → Threatening

Goal

It's likely that the correct answer will reward us for putting together this chain. It will probably test the idea that Inspires revulsion → Threatening or it will test the contrapositive ~Threatening → ~Inspires Revulsion

The second sentence is probably just there to create trap answers, since people may have been baited into thinking they could chain it to the first statement, since both mention "threatening".

23.

Which one of the following logically follows from the statements above?

  1. Any horror-story monster that is

    Reversed Logic

    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)

    9% picked this

  2. A monster that is psychologically

    Opposite Logic

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

    13% picked this

  3. If a monster triggers infantile

    Unsupported Relationship

    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.

    14% picked this

  4. If a monster is both

    Unsupported Relationship

    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.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    All monsters that are not

    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.

    62% 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