Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S1 · Q1 Because the statement “all gray rabbits

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

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

Conclusion (it follows)

The statement all suspected criminals are criminals is true.

Evidence (because)

The statement all gray rabbits are rabbits is true.

Evaluate

Well we obviously know it's not true to say that "all suspected criminals are criminals". Some of them may be proven innocent, in which case they are not criminals.

Meanwhile, all gray rabbits are definitely rabbits. They won't potentially be shown to not be a rabbit.

Goal

The argument fails to recognize that while you can't be a gray rabbit without being a rabbit, you could be a suspected criminal that isn't actually a criminal.

1.

The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to recognize that

  1. the relationship between being a

    Not the Source of Confusion

    "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% picked this

  2. the relationship between being suspected

    Unknown Relationships

    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% picked this

  3. Correct

    the relationship 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% picked this

  4. not all rabbits are gray

    Not an Objection

    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% picked this

  5. not all criminals are suspected

    Not an Objection

    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% 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