Logical Reasoning

PT12 · S1 · Q21 The new perfume Aurora smells

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 new perfume Aurora smells worse to Joan than any comparably priced perfume, and none of her friends likes the smell of Aurora as much as the smell of other perfumes.

Supporting Facts

Joan and her friends don't like the smell of Aurora. She thinks it's the worst of its class. Her friends think there are definitely others above it. Professor J likes Aurora more than any other perfume. She's an expert on the physiology of smell.

Evaluate

Usually with MBT, we're looking for conditionals. Technically the second claim is conditional.

Joan's friend → prefer others > Aurora

None of the others are conditionals (so, no chains happening). Do any of the facts trigger this rule?

Yes! Naturally, they trigger it via the contrapositive.

prefer Aurora > others → ~Joan's Friend

The professor prefers Aurora > all others, so by rule she isn't one of Joan's friends.

(If you knew how shady Joan's friend group is, you'd realize why one of the world's foremost experts on the physiology of smell simply can't risk the reputational harm of being Joan's friend, despite their obvious bestie chemistry)

Goal

They'll probably reward us for seeing that a fact triggers a rule: that the professor isn't one of Joan's friends.

21.

From the information presented in support of the conclusion, it can be properly inferred that

  1. none of Joan’s friends is

    Unsupported

    Only the professor is singled out as an expert on smell physiology, but it's possible that Joan's friends could include experts on the physiology of smell who simply don't happen to share their colleague Jameson's preference. Nothing in the stimulus rules out the possibility of expert friends.

    15% picked this

  2. Joan prefers all other perfumes

    Too Strong

    The stimulus says Aurora smells worse to Joan than any comparably priced perfume. That is a comparison within one price range. It does not tell us that Joan prefers all other perfumes to Aurora — there could be cheaper or more expensive perfumes that Joan likes less than Aurora.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    Professor Jameson is not one

    Why this is right

    This must be true. The stimulus says none of Joan's friends likes the smell of Aurora as much as other perfumes; but Professor Jameson does prefer Aurora to all other perfumes. The final claim of the paragraph activates the contrapositive of the second claim, which proves that the Prof isn't one of her friends.

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

    78% picked this

  4. none of Joan’s friends likes

    Too Strong

    The stimulus says her friends do not like the smell of Aurora as much as the smell of other perfumes. That is a comparison: they like Aurora less than other perfumes. It does not say they dislike Aurora. They could all like Aurora; they just like other perfumes more. This is a Relative vs. Absolute type of shift, (like it less vs. don't like it)

    3% picked this

  5. Joan and her friends all

    Unsupported

    We only know how they partially overlap when it comes to Aurora. We have no information about whether they have overlapping opinions when it comes to other perfumes.

    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