Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S2 · Q23 Whoever is kind is loved

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

Whoever is kind is loved by somebody or other, and whoever loves anyone is happy.

Conclusion (it follows that)

Whoever is kind is happy.

Evidence

Whoever is kind is loved by somebody, and Whoever loves somebody is happy

Evaluate

Wait a sec, wasn't that a valid argument?

We're trying to prove that Kind ----------------------------------> Happy

and they gave us Kind ---> loved by somebody and loved by somebody ----> Happy?

That can't be right. After all, if the argument were already airtight, then they couldn't ask us for an Assumption. What are we missing?

those two middle terms aren't equivalent. They are similar, but it's "receiving love" vs. "giving love".

They gave us

Kind ---> someone loves you and you love ----> Happy someone

So we're missing that internal link, to complete the Logic Path from Kind to Happy.

Goal

We want to know,

if someone loves you, then you love someone

or its equivalent contrapositive

if you love no one, then no one loves you

23.

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

  1. Whoever loves someone loves everyone.

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to attach "receiving love" to "giving out love". This is linking "giving out love to one" to "giving out love to all".

    10% picked this

  2. Whoever loves everyone loves someone.

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to attach "receiving love" to "giving out love". This is linking "giving out love to all" to "giving out love to one". This answer is also a tautology (a self-defining truth). Naturally if you love everyone, then you love "at least one person". That doesn't ever need to be said or assumed. It's just self-evidently true.

    7% picked this

  3. Whoever is happy loves everyone.

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to attach "receiving love" to "giving out love". This is linking "giving out love" to "being happy". If we're ever confused on Sufficient Assumption, one guessing heuristic that works pretty well is to not guess any answer choice that uses an idea that showed up twice in the argument. Mentioned twice? That'll suffice The correct answers want to link together stuff that was only mentioned once but not connected to its intended place. Things mentioned twice have usually been connected to their intended places. So in this problem, since "kind" and "happy" both occur twice, we wouldn't expect the correct answer to use the terms "kind" or "happy".

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    Whoever loves no one is

    Why this is right

    You just know that this test writer was proud of him/herself for making such a funny sounding dramatic correct answer. We're trying to prove that if you're kind, you're happy. We know that if you're kind, then someone loves you. According to this answer choice, if someone loves you, then you must love someone (if you loved no one, then no one would love you). And we know that if you love someone, you're happy. Thus, we've proven that if you're kind, you're happy. More formally, this answer is saying Don't love ? Not loved by someone someone The contrapositive: Loved by ? Love someone someone Kind ? Love someone Love ? Loved by someone someone Loved by ? Happy someone Kind ???????????????????> Happy

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

    60% picked this

  5. Whoever loves everyone is kind.

    Unrelated to Goal

    We're trying to attach "receiving love" to "giving out love". This is linking "giving out love" to "being kind". If we're ever confused on Sufficient Assumption, one guessing heuristic that works pretty well is to not guess any answer choice that uses an idea that showed up twice in the argument. Mentioned twice? That'll suffice The correct answers want to link together stuff that was only mentioned once but not connected to its intended place. Things mentioned twice have usually been connected to their intended places. So in this problem, since "kind" and "happy" both occur twice, we wouldn't expect the correct answer to use the terms "kind" or "happy".

    18% 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