Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q2 All Labrador retrievers bark

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

All Labrador retrievers bark a great deal.

Conclusion (therefore)

Rosa’s dogs are moderate barkers.

Evidence

All Labrador retrievers bark a great deal.

All Saint Bernards bark infrequently.

Each of Rosa’s dogs is a cross between a Labrador retriever and a Saint Bernard.

Evaluate

The argument concludes that because one group (Rosa’s dogs) is a mix of two other groups (Labrador retrievers and Saint Bernards), the trait of barking will be a mix of how much each of the two groups is known to bark.

That might seem reasonable in some contexts. If I mix a spicy food with a mild food, I'll get something moderately spiced. If I mix some tequila with some sprite, I'll get something moderately alcoholic / moderately sweet.

But it doesn't work with genetics all the time. If Johnny is a mix of his mom and his dad's DNA, and she has blue eyes and he has brown eyes, that doesn't mean that Johnny will have bluish-brown eyes.

With genetics, sometimes a dominant gene beats a recessive gene and so the resulting trait matches one of the two inputs, not a mix of the two inputs.

Goal

Even if we don't understand why this argument structure is objectionable, we can head to the answers looking to copy it.

Thing 1 is a lot of X. Thing 2 is a small amount of X. Thus, a mix of Thing 1 and 2 will be a moderate amount of X.

2.

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning that most closely resembles the flawed reasoning used in the argument above?

  1. All students who study diligently

    Wrong Premise

    The two groups in this argument do not have different characteristics (barks a great deal and barks infrequently) but rather the same characteristic (good grades). And the first two premises are a mix of ALL and SOME, whereas the original was ALL and ALL.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    All type A chemicals are

    Why this is right

    This contains the relationship that one group (this household cleaner) is a mix of two other groups (type A and type B chemicals), so a characteristic that is different in the two other groups is mixed in the group that is itself a mixture.

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

    93% picked this

  3. All students at Hanson School

    Wrong Validity

    This argument is valid, while the one in the stimulus is invalid.

    2% picked this

  4. All transcriptionists know shorthand. All

    Wrong Validity

    This argument is valid, while the one in the stimulus is invalid.

    1% picked this

  5. All of Kenisha’s dresses are

    Wrong Flaw

    The flaw in this argument is reversed logic. The first two premises were promising, but then the argument would have to go onto say something like: Prem 3: This dress was made by Kenisha and Connie. Conc: Thus, this dress will be moderately well made.

    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.

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