Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT123 S3 Q20 Explanation

We should accept the proposal to demolish

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

TopicsParallel Flaw

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

Start practicing free

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

We should accept the proposal to demolish the old train station, because the local historical society, which vehemently opposes this, is dominated by people who have no commitment to long-term economic well-being. Preserving old development, which is critical to economic health.

What this question is testing

Parallel Flaw

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence 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
20.

The flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above is most similar to that exhibited by which one of

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Conclusion17% picked this

    Our country should attempt to safeguard works of art that it deems to possess national cultural significance. These works might not be recognized as

    This conclusion does not challenge the truth of another claim.

  2. Wrong Conclusion8% picked this

    Documents of importance to local heritage should be properly preserved and archived for the sake of future generations. For, if even one of these

    This conclusion does not challenge the truth of another claim.

  3. Correct57% picked this

    You should have your hair cut no more than once a month. After all, beauticians suggest that their customers have their hair cut twice

    Why this is right

    This argument also contains an ad hominem attack. That the beauticians have an ulterior motive does establish that their claim is false.

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

  4. Wrong Conclusion14% picked this

    The committee should endorse the plan to postpone construction of the new expressway. Many residents of the neighborhoods that would be affected are fervently

    This conclusion does not challenge the truth of another claim.

  5. Wrong Conclusion4% picked this

    One should not borrow even small amounts of money unless it is absolutely necessary. Once one borrows a few dollars, the interest starts to

    This conclusion does not challenge the truth of another claim.

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