Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT111 S1 Q24 Explanation

In every case of political

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

TopicsParallel Flaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

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. Clearly, therefore, behind all the cases of political unrest in that mastermind who organized and fomented them all.

What this question is testing

Parallel Flaw

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
24.

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

Answer choices

  1. Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

    Every Chicago driver has a number on his or her license, so the number on some Chicago driver’s license is the exact average of

    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.

  2. Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

    Every telephone number in North America has an area code, so there must be at least as many area codes as

    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.

  3. Correct82% picked this

    Every citizen of Edmonton has a social insurance number, so there must be one number that is the social insurance number

    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.

  4. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match2% picked this

    Every loss of a single hair is insignificant, so no one who has a full head of hair

    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."

  5. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match4% picked this

    Every moment in Vladimir’s life is followed by a later moment in Vladimir’s life, so Vladimir’s

    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".

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