Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT125 S2 Q10 Explanation

Helen: Reading a book

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

TopicsMethod

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

Helen: Reading a book is the intellectual equivalent of investing money: you're investing time, thereby foregoing other ways of spending that time, in the hope that what you learn will later afford you more opportunities than doing something other than reading that book.

Randi: But that applies only to vocational books. Reading fiction is like watching a wasted time.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question
10.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the technique Randi uses in responding

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match0% picked this

    questioning how the evidence Helen uses for a claim

    Nothing Randi says is presented as a commentary on how Helen gathered evidence. He isn’t saying, “You must have only looked at vocational books as you were gathering evidence for your analogy.” He’s just saying, “Yeah, that’s a good analogy for nonfiction books, but not so much for fiction.”

  2. Correct90% picked this

    disputing the scope of Helen's analogy by presenting

    Why this is right

    Randi does dispute the scope of Helen’s analogy, saying that it only applies to vocational books (a narrower scope than all books). Does he present another analogy? Yes, he says that reading fiction is like watching a sitcom.

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

  3. Too Strong: “absurd conclusion”2% picked this

    arguing that Helen's reasoning ultimately leads to an

    Randi thinks that Helen’s reasoning is sound, as long as we’re talking about vocational books. He doesn’t suggest that she has reached an absurd conclusion, just that her conclusion only applies to a smaller subset of things than what she initially argued.

  4. Out Of Scope5% picked this

    drawing an analogy to an example presented

    Out Of Scope: “example presented by Helen” Helen does not present any examples. She presents an analogy between reading books and investing money. An example is a specific instance of a general statement (i.e. “Lebron is 6’8” is an example of the general statement “Pro basketball players tend to be tall”). Analogies are two specific situations that share some general common features.

  5. Out Of Scope3% picked this

    denying the relevance of an example presented

    Out Of Scope: “example presented by Helen” Helen doesn’t present an example. She presents an analogy. Randi does not deny the relevance of investing money to reading books, so long as we’re talking about vocational books. →

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