Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S3 · Q19 Tanya would refrain from littering

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

Tanya would refrain from littering if everyone else refrained from littering.

Conclusion

Tanya doesn't litter.

Evidence

If everyone else refrained from littering, Tanya would too. + Her friends refrain from littering.

Evaluation

This comes down to her friends ≠ everyone else.

To trigger that conditional, we need to know that everyone is refraining, but all we know is that her friends are refraining. We could describe this as a Sampling flaw, since we need to assume that "her friends are representative of everyone".

Goal

To match the original, we'd want to trigger a conditional with a dubious Sampling move.

If all X's are A, then Y. Some X's are A. Thus, Y.

19.

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. All residents of the same

    Different Flaw

    This doesn't have a sampling flaw. It doesn't say, "because this is true of a some X's, it's true of all X's". It says, "because this is true of some X's, it's true of other X's". And the conditional is related to actually making that sampling move, because it's saying that there will be some shared goals among all residents. We don't know of "local park improvements" has to be one of those shared goals, but that's a different flaw than "we don't know if everyone else is doing what Tanya's friends are doing".

    3% picked this

  2. If a talented artist is

    Different Flaw

    This is a conditional logic flaw that is partly Necessary vs. Sufficient. It's saying, A and B ? C. Donna is C and B. Thus, Donna must be A. This doesn't contain the Sampling error from the original, and the original didn't contain this backwards logic.

    6% picked this

  3. Herbert will stop selling office

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    There is a conditional, no regulars complain ? stop selling office supplies If the argument then went, "Some of the regulars haven't complained, thus he still stop selling office supplies", it would match. Instead, it goes "Some of the regulars didn't realize he sold office supplies (mismatch), thus they won't complain (mismatch)".

    7% picked this

  4. If all whales need to

    Opposite Logic

    There is a conditional, all whales need surface ? easy to observe If the argument then went, "Some whales need to surface, thus whales are easy to observe", it would match. Instead, it goes "Some whales are easily observed, thus they must surface."

    14% picked this

  5. Correct

    If all of a restaurant’s

    Why this is right

    We've got the conditional, all customers like food ? exceptional restaurant And then we have the sampling move, everyone Sherryl consulted liked the food. And the author acts like that triggers the conditional, and concludes that it's an exceptional restaurant. We're left thinking, people Sherryl consulted ? all customers And maybe some of us are thinking, what a weird way to spell the name Sherryl

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

    70% 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