Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S1 · Q21 Many successful graphic designers began

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

Many successful graphic designers began their careers after years of formal training, although a significant number learned their trade more informally on the job.

Statements

Quantifiers (many / significant #)

Many successful graph = years of formal designers training

Many successful graph = learned trade designers informally on job

Quantifier / Conditional (no)

Successful → Did not ignore designer wishes of a client

Evaluate

Whenever we see a conditional rule on Inference questions, we think,

1. Are there any other conditional rules that might chain together with this one? Here, there are no other conditional claims. The other two claims are unspecific quantities like 'many' and 'a significant number'.

2. Can I apply this conditional rule to any of the provided facts? (Might have to contrapose the conditional in order to see its relevance)

In this case, yes! We could apply our conditional rule to the two facts we were given about "successful designers", because "successful designer" triggers our rule and tells us that they definitely "didn't ignore clients' wishes".

We know many successful graphic designers began their careers after years of formal training, and did not ignore the wishes of their clients.

And we know that a bunch of successful graphic designers learned on the job, and did not ignore the wishes of their clients.

If we prefer thinking of this in terms of Quantifiers, this problem is basically giving us these ingredients:

Some Formal Train <-> Successful Some Learn on Job <-> Successful Successful --> ~ignore We can derive Some Formal Train ---> ~ignore Some Learn on Job ---> ~ignore

Goal

Find a provable answer, most likely connecting "formal training + don't ignore wishes" or connecting "learned on job + don't ignore wishes".

21.

If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

  1. All graphic designers who are

    Illegal Negation

    The final sentence provides this conditional: successful designer → do not ignore wishes This answer illegally negates both sides: unsuccessful designer → do ignore wishes

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    Not all formally trained graphic

    Why this is right

    We always translate from negative to positive with "not all". Not all A's are B = Some A's are ~B So this answer is saying Some formally trained GD's do not ignore We can definitely derive this very weak claim. We know there's at least one formally trained graphic designer who doesn't ignore their clients' wishes, because some formally trained graphic designers are successful. And no one ever became successful ignoring their clients' wishes. Some FORMAL are successful TRAINED + if successful, don't ignore - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Some FORMAL don't ignore TRAINED

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

    70% picked this

  3. The more attentive a graphic

    Relative vs. Absolute

    We had a conditional rule that said if successful, then don't ignore client's wishes That is yes/no, on/off logic, which we call Absolute language. This answer choice is switching over into Relative more/less, up/down language. We know that "no lawyer ever practiced law who failed the bar exam", which means, "if you're a lawyer, then you didn't fail the bar exam". We can't derive from that claim that, "The higher you scored on the bar exam, the more likely you are to be a lawyer".

    14% picked this

  4. No graphic designers who learn

    Too Strong: no

    This makes a conditional connection: Learned trade on job → won't ignore wishes But "learned trade on job" wasn't part of any conditional claim. It was just "a significant number of people who learned on the job". We don't anything that's true of "every single person who has learned their trade on the job". Another way to think about why this answer is wrong is that we could only derive this answer if we knew that "All graphic designers who learn their trade on the job are successful". Since we don't know that, we can't derive this answer.

    7% picked this

  5. The most successful graphic designers

    Relative vs. Absolute: most

    All three claims only refer to the concept of successful in absolute language. We can talk about whether or not someone is successful. We don't have any language that lets us talk about someone being more successful than anyone else. So we can't derive anything about who is most successful.

    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