Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q25 The first bicycle, the Draisienne

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

The first bicycle, the Draisienne, was invented in 1817.

Conclusion

Some change in values must have occurred between 1817 and 1860.

Evidence

Bike was invented in 1817.

There was a brief fad, but bikes basically disappeared until the 1860s, when they finally "caught on".

New technology accepted → Coheres with values

Evaluation

Any time we're doing Flaw and see conditional logic language (like "only when") we should examine whether the author is illegally using that rule in backwards or opposite fashion (aka, Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw).

Our author is looking at the Curious Fact of why wasn't the bike accepted in 1817? and looking at the rule he presents that says, doesn't cohere w/ values → new not accepted

He thinks,

Goal

We could describe this flaw as a Necessary vs. Sufficient error. The author has this conditional: doesn't cohere → new tech not accepted

and he is reasoning in this style: bike wasn't accepted → bike didn't cohere

We could also describe this flaw as a Causal Flaw, in which the author has overconfidently settled on one possible explanation for why bikes weren't initially accepted.

25.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. presumes, without giving justification, that

    Too Strong: "never"

    The author is assuming that the brief fad that ensued in 1817 was not indicative of genuine acceptance. But it's too strong to say he's assuming that fads are never indicative of genuine acceptance. However, we should also be wary of this answer from a common sense point of view. By definition, using the term "fad" implies that something came and went. So it's probably a fair assumption to say that "fads ≠ genuine / long-term acceptance".

    10% picked this

  2. fails to recognize that the

    Author Agrees

    The author is assuming that the reappearance in the 1860s did indicate genuine acceptance. That's his whole basis for concluding that values changed between 1817 and 1860.

    9% picked this

  3. offers no support for the

    Not a Reasoning Problem

    We don't need the premises to be precisely defined, cited, measured, etc. We're looking at problems with the reasoning, which means that we're accepting the truth of the premises but analyzing why those true premises would still fail to prove the author's conclusion. The idea of objecting to reasoning is saying, "I can accept your premise but still not accept your conclusion, because [objection]". This answer is sneering, "Why should I accept your premise?"

    0% picked this

  4. poses a question that has

    Question is Relevant

    The author's conclusion is offering a potential explanation for why bikes disappeared from 1817 to 1860 (the values of society weren't ready for a bike in a 1817 but changed somewhere along the way to 1860). So the question is supremely relevant to the conclusion.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    ignores, without giving justification, alternative

    Why this is right

    The author's conditional shows that one possible reason for new technology to not be accepted is that the new tech didn't cohere with the values of a society. But there could be lots of other reasons that a new technology isn't accepted: "people don't understand it, can't afford it, don't see how it would benefit them, fear its health implications, etc." The author overconfidently settles on one possible explanation, i.e. commits a Causal Flaw.

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

    79% 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