Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q25 Wealth is not a good thing

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

Wealth is not a good thing, for good things cause no harm at all, yet wealth is often harmful to people.

Evidence (for)

Good things cause no harm X → ~Y

Wealth is often harmful. W is often Y.

Conclusion

Wealth is not a good thing. W is ~X.

Evaluate

Because this argument has repeating ideas (wealth / good things / harmful), it's conducive for putting into an algebraic recipe.

But we could also just say to ourselves "A contrapositive argument structure", if we know what that means.

Goal

We want two premises that feel something like this: - All X's are Y - This thing isn't Y

And a conclusion that then validly concludes the opposite of the original trigger: - This thing isn't X.

25.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Alex loves to golf, and

    Why this is right

    We have a conditional chess club → ~loves to golf X → ~Y We have a fact that denies the outcome Alex loves to golf This thing is Y. We have a conclusion that denies the trigger Alex is not in chess club This thing is ~X. (It doesn't make any difference, if you're trying to match one contrapositive argument to another, whether the trigger or outcome start out as positive or negative ideas. As long as you're establishing the outcome isn't true and concluding that the trigger isn't true, you're still matching the structure)

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

    50% picked this

  2. Isabella must be a contented

    Invalid / Reversed Logic

    We have a conditional happy → smiles / rarely cries X → Y and Z We have a fact that affirms the outcome Isabella smiles / rarely cries. Isabella is Y and Z. Then we get an illegal conclusion that uses backwards logic to conclude something resembling the trigger. Isabella is contented. Isabella is X

    3% picked this

  3. Growth in industry is not

    Bad Premise Match

    There's only one premise (the other idea is a counterpoint), and it's not a conditional. This is a non-starter.

    3% picked this

  4. Sarah’s dog is not a

    Weak Premise Match / Invalid

    We don't have a conditional premise, so this one is hopeless. It's making a pseudo-contrapositive argument with a Most statement, but in order for that to end validly, it should say "Sarah's dog is probably not a dachshund". No conditional, but a Most claim Most dachshunds hunt poorly. Most X's are Y We have a fact that denies the "outcome" Sarah's dog hunts very well. D is not Y. The conclusion denies the trigger, which is too strong, given that we only said MOST dachshund's hunt poorly, not all of them. Sarah's dog is not a dachshund. D is not X.

    42% picked this

  5. There is usually more traffic

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    We have a conditional, kind of. Putting "usually" into conditional form is kind of a lie, since there isn't really certainty. It's more like a Most claim. holiday → usually more traffic ~X → usually Y We have a fact that affirms the trigger. Today is not a holiday. Today is ~X. The conclusion is neither the trigger nor the outcome. It's just a judgment rendered on the fact that we would usually expect more traffic.

    2% 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