Because the statement “all gray rabbits

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Because the statement “all gray rabbits are rabbits” is true, it follows by analogy that the statement “all criminals” is also true.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to

Answer choices

Not the Source of Confusion8% picked this
the relationship between being a criminal and being a rabbit is not of the same kind as that between
"criminal" and "rabbit" were the two nouns, whereas "suspected" and "gray" were the two adjectives. So, yes, the relationship between being a criminal and being a rabbit (both nouns) is different than the relationship between "suspected" and "gray" (both adjectives). But we weren't mad at the author for confusing nouns with adjectives. We were mad at him for thinking that "suspected" and "gray" are comparable as adjectives. Gray X's are definitely X's, but suspected X's are not definitely X's.
8%
Unknown Relationships3% picked this
the relationship between being suspected and being a rabbit is not of the same kind as that between being
There isn't any relationship between being suspected and being a rabbit. Neither claim put those two ideas together. And those two ideas don't line up in parallel when we compare the two claims to each other. Similarly 'gray' and 'criminal' are never related in the same claim, and they're never related by analogy (because they each are in different positions within their claims).
3%
Correct87% picked this
the relationship between being a gray rabbit and being a rabbit is not of the same kind as that between being a
Why this is right
A gray rabbit is definitely a rabbit. A suspected criminal is not necessarily a criminal.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
87%
Not an Objection1% picked this
not all rabbits are
It doesn't hurt this argument to say, "Hey, author, some rabbits aren't gray." This author didn't think that all rabbits are gray.
1%
Not an Objection1% picked this
not all criminals are
It doesn't hurt this argument to say, "Hey, author, some criminals aren't suspected." This author didn't think that all criminals are suspected. (the author just mistakenly thought that all suspected criminals are criminals)
1%

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