Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q16 Everything that is commonplace and

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

Everything that is commonplace and ordinary fails to catch our attention, so there are things that fail to catch our attention but that are miracles of nature.

Conclusion (so)

There are things that fail to catch our attention but that are miracles of nature.

Evidence

Everything that is commonplace and ordinary fails to catch our attention.

Evaluate

If it weren't for that magic Conclusion Indicator "so", we'd have no easy way of figuring out which claim is the premise and which is the conclusion.

This argument isn't easy to intuitively understand, because it's mathematical sounding and involves a big language-shift leap from one concept to another.

But since this is Sufficient Assumption, we can usually get by with a mathematical understanding. Our job is to prove the conclusion. To prove that , we just need one example of something that is both X and Y.

We need an example of something that - fails to catch our attention and also - is a miracle of nature

Does the premise give us anything like that?

Not really, but it talks about "fails to catch our attention". From a purely structural standpoint, this idea of "fails to catch our attention" is the overlapping part of the argument:

PREM: everything that's A is B. CONC: so there are B's that are C.

Without understanding anything else, we can predict that the correct answer needs to somehow spell out a connection between A and C. (On this question, that would get us down to only two answers)

The correct answer will be connecting "commonplace and ordinary" to "miracles of nature".

Goal

We're trying to prove that - there's at least one thing that both fails to catch our attention and is a miracle of nature.

All we know so far is that - commonplace and ordinary things always fail to catch our attention.

So we're predicting the correct answer will link "commonplace and ordinary things" to "miracle of nature"

16.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Only miracles of nature fail

    Trigger Doesn't Apply to Premise

    Does this help us prove that some things 'fail to catch our attention' and are also 'a miracle of nature'? This answer says that if fails to be ordinary ? then it's a miracle and commonplace of nature The word "only / only if" always indicates a right side (Nec) idea. The premise, which is the only fact we have to build off of, talked about things that are commonplace and ordinary. This conditional rule is talking about things that aren't commonplace and ordinary, so it takes us nowhere.

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    Some things that are ordinary

    Why this is right

    Some statements are reversible, so we can rephrase this idea as: some miracles of nature are ordinary and commonplace. According to the conditional premise, if you're ordinary and commonplace, then you fail to catch our attention. So applying that rule to "some miracles of nature", we get that some miracles of nature fail to catch our attention. Thus, we've proven the conclusion. There are some things that fail to catch our attention that are also miracles of nature. Formally, ANSWER: Some MoN are C&O + PREMISE: All C&O ? FTCA CONCLUSION: Some MoN .... FTCA.

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

    85% picked this

  3. Some things that are commonplace

    Missing New Term

    We're trying to logically derive that "some things fail to catch our attention and are also miracles of nature". We have a premise that talks about "fail to catch our attention", but we don't have any facts yet about "miracles of nature". If the answer doesn't give us a fact about "miracles of nature", then we'll never be able to derive the conclusion, which talks about "miracles of nature". I can only derive A = Z if I have facts about both A and Z, A = B B = Y Y = Z If the premise doesn't talk about "miracles" and the answer doesn't talk about "miracles", then there's no way we'll be able to combine those claims and derive a mathematically proven conclusion about "miracles".

    2% picked this

  4. Everything that fails to catch

    Missing New Term

    We're trying to logically derive that "some things fail to catch our attention and are also miracles of nature". We have a premise that talks about "fail to catch our attention", but we don't have any facts yet about "miracles of nature". If the answer doesn't give us a fact about "miracles of nature", then we'll never be able to derive the conclusion, which talks about "miracles of nature". I can only derive A = Z if I have facts about both A and Z, A = B B = Y Y = Z If the premise doesn't talk about "miracles" and the answer doesn't talk about "miracles", then there's no way we'll be able to combine those claims and derive a mathematically proven conclusion about "miracles".

    3% picked this

  5. Only extraordinary or unusual things

    Missing New Term

    We're trying to logically derive that "some things fail to catch our attention and are also miracles of nature". We have a premise that talks about "fail to catch our attention", but we don't have any facts yet about "miracles of nature". If the answer doesn't give us a fact about "miracles of nature", then we'll never be able to derive the conclusion, which talks about "miracles of nature". I can only derive A = Z if I have facts about both A and Z, A = B B = Y Y = Z If the premise doesn't talk about "miracles" and the answer doesn't talk about "miracles", then there's no way we'll be able to combine those claims and derive a mathematically proven conclusion about "miracles".

    3% 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