Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S3 · Q19 If the flowers Drew received today

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

If the flowers Drew received today had been sent by someone who knows Drew well, that person would have known that Drew prefers violets to roses.

Conclusion

The florist must have made a mistake: either Drew was supposed to get violets, or a card, or the flowers were for someone else.

Evidence

If the sender knew Drew well, they would know that Drew likes violets more than roses.

But the flowers Drew received were roses.

If the sender didn't know Drew well, they would have sent a signed card with the flowers.

But there was no card.

Evaluate

Given these conditional rules and facts, how could we still argue that the flowers were not a mistake, they were violets with no card intended for Drew?

There were two conditionals, and two facts that seemed to trigger their contrapositives.

Sent by someone who doesn't know D → card

The fact that there was no card means that the person who sent it was someone who does know Drew well.

But doesn't that contradict the other conditional?

Sent by someone → would know that D who knows D well prefers violets

While it's counterintuitive, there is no contradiction. The conditional is only saying that the sender would know that Drew prefers roses, not that the sender would have definitely sent roses.

Maybe the sender knows that Drew hates roses and sent him roses sarcastically, to troll him.

Goal

The loose end in this argument is that someone who knows Drew well may have decided to send Drew roses (maybe they were on sale) even though that person knew that Drew prefers violets.

19.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

  1. Most people send roses when

    Irrelevant Relationship

    What's true of others may not be true of the person who sent Drew roses.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    Some people send flowers for

    Why this is right

    This allows us to argue that someone intentionally sent Drew roses, without a card. They know Drew well, so they didn't bother to send a signed card. They know Drew well enough to know that he prefers violets, but they sent roses anyway. Maybe they were just trying to annoy him or teach him a lesson for bringing the wrong kind of wine to their recent dinner party.

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

    51% picked this

  3. Someone who does not know

    Premise Support

    The fact that a stranger would be unlikely to send Drew flowers doesn't move the needle at all. Because there was no card, we already know for sure that the flowers didn't come from a stranger.

    10% picked this

  4. The florist has never delivered

    Too Weak

    For this to undermine the argument we would need to assume that something true of the florist in the past is also true of the florist today. But we don't know that.

    16% picked this

  5. Some people who know Drew

    Irrelevant Relationship

    We were given a conditional that said "anyone who doesn't know Drew well would have definitely sent a card", but that doesn't preclude the possibility that people who know Drew well also send cards.

    12% 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.

Start practicing free