Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S1 · Q24 In every case of political

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

In every case of political unrest in a certain country, the police have discovered that some unknown person or persons organized and fomented that unrest.

There is a single mastermind organizing/fomenting behind all the cases of political unrest in the country.

In every case of political unrest in the country, there has been a mastermind organizing/fomenting that unrest.

Our objection to this argument would be something like, (cough---George Soros--cough-cough)

That would be like saying

This has the feel of Part vs. Whole somewhat, but it's a little weirder.

In each case of X, there was a Y (premise) Thus, there is one Y behind all the X's (conclusion)

24.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following?

Every Chicago driver has a
Bad Conclusion Match
Each license has a number can work as our Premise, but then the conclusion should be, "Thus, there is the same single number on all licenses", instead of this weird idea about one license having the average of all other numbers.
5% picked this
Every telephone number in North
Bad Conclusion Match
Each number has an area code can work as our Premise, but then the conclusion should be, "Thus, there is one area code that gets used for all numbers." Instead, the conclusion is a quantitative comparison about area codes vs. phone numbers.
5% picked this
Correct
Every citizen of Edmonton has
Why this is right
Each citizen has a social insurance number can work as our Premise, but then the conclusion should be, "Thus, there is the same single insurance number for all citizens". And that's what we get!
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% picked this
Every loss of a single
Bad Premise/Conclusion Match
Each loss of hair has an insignificance is too weird to work as our Premise, because then the conclusion should be, "Thus, there is the same insignificance to all lost hairs."
2% picked this
Every moment in Vladimir’s life
Bad Premise/Conclusion Match
Each moment has a following moment is not going to work well as our Premise, because then the conclusion would have to be, "Thus there is a single following moment that goes with all moments".
4% picked this

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.