Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q21 It is highly likely that

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

It is highly likely that Claudette is a classical pianist.

Conclusion

It is highly likely that Claudette is a classical pianist.

Evidence

Claudette recognizes many of Clara Schumann's works.

Most classical pianists recognize many of Clara Schumann's works.

Most people who aren't classical pianists do not recognize many of Clara Schumann's works (many of them have never even heard of Clara Schumann).

Evaluate

It's very hard to diagnose what's going wrong in this argument if we don't have some familiarity with how to use Most claims to derive a Likely conclusion. If we do, this argument will seem like almost like the illegal reversal we're used to seeing on Necessary vs. Sufficient flaws.

Suppose we know that Most X's are Y, X --m--> Y and we learn that Danny is an X, Danny is X. then we can conclude that Danny is likely Y. Danny is probably Y

Most Senators are men. A Senator is visiting our class today. Thus, today's visitor will probably be a man.

But if we know Most X's are Y, and then we're told Danny is Y, we are not allowed to read that backwards and conclude that Danny is probably X.

Most Senators are men. A man is visiting our class today. Thus, today's visitor will probably be a Senator.

In this argument we were given 1. Most classical pianists recognize Clara Schumann. Classical pianist --m--> recognize Clara Schumann 2. Claudette recognizes Clara Schumann. Claudette is 'recognize Clara Schumann'

The argument is trying to read that Most claim backwards. That's how it's concluding that Claudette is probably classical pianist.

Goal

If we had these two claims, 1. Claudette recognizes Clara Schumann 2. Most who recognize Clara Schumann are classical pianists

We could conclude Claudette is probably classical pianist

But the premise they gave us is a reversal of that 2nd claim: - Most classical pianists recognize Clara Schumann

It's hard to predict how the correct answer will describe this flaw, since it's not technically a Necessary vs. Sufficient move (and there's no fancy term for "reading a Most statement backwards"). When in doubt, it's good to remember the Anti-Conclusion. We want an answer to help us argue that .

21.

The reasoning in the argument above is flawed in that it

ignores the possibility that Claudette
Not an Objection
When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. It's not any objection to the argument to say that Claudette knows other composers better than Clara Schumann. The argument wasn't assuming that Claudette knew Clara Schumann better than other composers. The argument was only saying that Claudette recognizes many of Clara Schumann's works, whereas the vast majority of people who aren't classical pianists don't recognize her works.
2% picked this
presumes, without providing justification, that
Not an Assumption
When a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the author had to assume the idea that follows. One red flag suggesting that this answer is not a crucial assumption is that it has nothing to do with Claudette, who is the centerpiece of the argument. Does the author need to assume that any person who hasn't heard of Clara Schumann doesn't recognize her works? No, it doesn't matter if some people recognize her music but haven't heard her name. We probably can all remember instances where we've heard a song but don't know who wrote it and might not recognize the name if we heard it.
20% picked this
presumes, without providing justification, that
Not an Assumption
Does the author need to assume that any person who is a classical pianist cannot play other instruments? No, that's too strong and not relevant. If classical pianists can also play other instruments, does that hurt the argument? Does that give us a way to say, "See? Claudette probably isn't a classical pianist." No, because if you're a classical pianist who also plays the oboe, you're still a classical pianist.
1% picked this
relies for its plausibility on
Not Equivocation
When we see a Flaw answer choice saying that the author used a "term" in two different ways, that's the famous flaw called Equivocation (which is almost never the right answer). This argument was using "classical" in a perfectly consistent, comprehensible way. It just referred to the "classical" period / style of music (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.)
1% picked this
Correct
ignores the possibility that the
Why this is right
When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Does it hurt the argument to say that "most people who recognize many of Clara Schumann's works are not classical pianists"? Yes! If we combine this answer with the premise ... Claudette recognizes many of Clara Schumann's works. + Most people who recognize many of Clara Schumann's works are not classical pianists. ... together, that suggests that Claudette is probably not a classical pianist (our anti-conclusion). We could pick this answer simply by understanding that, if true, it would weaken the argument. This answer, though, does address the mistaken Most reversal we talked about. The author was trying to make this argument: 1. Claudette recognizes Clara Schumann 2. Most who recognize Clara Schumann are classical pianists Thus, Claudette is probably a classical pianist But the author never supplied #2 as a premise (he gave us the reversal of that instead). This answer choice is simply saying the author fails to consider that this #2 idea, which he needs for his argument, might not be true.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% 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