Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q17 People who have never been

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

People who have never been asked to do more than they can easily do are people who never do all they can.

Original Argument

Premise: People who have never been pushed beyond their comfort zone never do all they can. (Never pushed → never doing all they can.)

Premise: Alex has not done all he is capable of doing.

Conclusion: Alex has never been pushed beyond his comfort zone.

Evaluate

The flaw is affirming the consequent / mistaking necessary for sufficient. The first premise gives: never pushed → not doing all you can. The argument observes that Alex is not doing all he can and concludes he was never pushed. But "not doing all you can" can have causes other than "never pushed" — laziness, illness, bad luck. The condition (never pushed) is sufficient for "not doing all you can," but the argument treats it as if it were necessary.

Goal

Find an answer with the same flaw: a conditional ("X → Y"), then observation that Y holds, then conclusion that X holds — affirming the consequent.

17.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Anybody who has a dog

    Why this is right

    Same flaw. Premise: anyone with a dog knows the value of companionship (dog → knows companionship). Premise: Alicia knows the value of companionship. Conclusion: Alicia has a dog. The argument observes the consequent (knows companionship) and concludes the antecedent (has a dog). But Alicia could know the value of companionship from many sources — friends, family, cats. The structure mirrors the original exactly: a conditional, observation of the result, and an unjustified leap back to the cause.

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

    58% picked this

  2. Anyone who discovers something new

    Bad Match

    This argument has the form: discoverer → has examined all solutions. Fran is not a discoverer. Therefore Fran has never explored all solutions. That is "denying the antecedent," not "affirming the consequent." The original argument observes the consequent and concludes the antecedent; this one denies the antecedent and concludes the consequent is false. Different structure, different flaw.

    13% picked this

  3. Any person who does not

    Bad Match

    The argument here is: not facing challenges → not accomplishing all. Jill accomplishes all she can. Therefore Jill faces challenges. This is contrapositive reasoning, which is logically valid — not flawed at all. Since the original argument is flawed, this cannot be a parallel flaw.

    6% picked this

  4. By definition, a polygon is

    Bad Match

    This argument is valid: a polygon is defined as a closed plane figure bounded by straight lines, the chalkboard object is a closed plane figure bounded by straight lines, so it is a polygon. That is straightforward definition application — not flawed reasoning. Cannot match the original's flaw.

    5% picked this

  5. People who have never lost

    Bad Match

    The structure here is different. Premise: never lost something irreplaceable → lax about security. Then the argument observes Jon is lax about security with replaceable things and concludes he never lost anything. This is more confused — it switches scope (lax with replaceable things vs. lax in general), and the structure does not cleanly mirror the original. Not a clean parallel.

    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