Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S4 · Q22 If there is an election

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

If there is an election, you can either vote or not.

Conclusion (so)

Following an election, either you will have the satisfaction of knowing you influenced an election's results, or you will have no right to complain about them.

Election → Have Satisfaction or No Right to Complain

Evidence

Election → Vote or ~Vote

Vote → Have Satisfaction

~Vote → No Right to Complain

Evaluate

There is a lot of conditional logic and copycat language, so this would work nicely for diagramming the structure. But it's also pretty fair to conversationalize: .

It's a valid argument since we're forced to walk through one of the two doors in the binary of vote or not vote, and there are rules telling us what consequence we definitely face in either case, so we're definitely going to arrive at one or the other consequence.

Goal

The structural recipe looks something like P: A → B or ~B P: B → Y P: ~B → Z C: A → Y or Z

I'd start by making sure we have a binary (like vote or not-vote) and then we have a rule for each of those two options.

22.

The reasoning in which one of the following most closely resembles that in the argument above?

  1. When you rent a car,

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We get the initial binary (take out insurance or don't take out insurance). We get a consequence for each action: insured → you're covered ~insured → personally liable So the conclusion should be saying "Thus when you rent a car, you'll either be covered or personally liable". But the conclusion is not an either / or. It's a comparison (better off).

    4% picked this

  2. If you go for a

    Bad Premise Match

    We get the initial binary: relaxed or not relaxed. But we're only given a rule for the consequence of being relaxed. There's no rule for not relaxed → ??? So it goes off the rails at that point.

    8% picked this

  3. If you attend school, you

    Bad Premise Match

    We get that initial binary (find stimulating or not find stimulating), but we don't get a rule for each consequence. There should be a rule for stimulating → ??? and for not stimulating → ??? But instead we get rules for "motivated vs. unmotivated teacher". So that falls apart early.

    11% picked this

  4. Correct

    If you use a computer,

    Why this is right

    We get the initial binary (easily readable vs. not easily readable). Then we get a consequence for each option: easily readable → pswd protected ~easily readable → electronically encrypted So the conclusion should be saying, use computer → pswd protected OR elec encrypted And that's essentially what it says!

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

    73% picked this

  5. When manufacturers use a natural

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We get the initial binary (efficient or inefficient), with consequences on each side). efficient → depleted quickly ~efficient → lasts much longer So the conclusion should be saying, Use natural resource → depleted quickly OR lasts much longer But the conclusion looks nothing like that and even brings in a brand new idea of "should be fined"

    3% 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