Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT125 S2 Q23 Explanation

At Southgate Mall, mattresses

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

TopicsParallel

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

At Southgate Mall, mattresses are sold only at Mattress Madness. Every mattress at Mattress Madness is on sale at a 20 percent discount. So every mattress for sale at at a 20 percent discount.

What this question is testing

Parallel

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
23.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Structure / Wrong Validity11% picked this

    The only food in Diane's apartment is in her refrigerator. All the food she purchased within the past week is in her refrigerator. Therefore,

    The only food in Diane’s A → R apartment is in her refrigerator. All the food she purchased P → R within the past week is in her refrigerator. Therefore, she purchased A → P all the food in her apartment within the past week. This argument relies on reversing the second premise. Furthermore, this argument is flawed, while the argument in the stimulus is valid.

  2. Wrong Structure / Wrong Validity5% picked this

    Diane's refrigerator, and all the food in it, is in her apartment. Diane purchased all the food in her refrigerator within the past week.

    Diane’s refrigerator, and R → A all the food in it, is in her apartment. Diane purchased all the R → P food in her refrigerator within the past week. Therefore, she purchased A → P all the food in her apartment within the past week. This argument relies on reversing the first premise. Furthermore, this argument is flawed, while the argument in the stimulus is valid.

  3. Correct65% picked this

    All the food in Diane's apartment is in her refrigerator. Diane purchased all the food in her refrigerator within the past week. Therefore, she

    Why this is right

    All the food in Diane’s A → R apartment is in her refrigerator. Diane purchased all the R → P food in her refrigerator within the past week. Therefore, she purchased A → P all the food in her apartment within the past week. This argument infers a conditional relationship from the connection of two different two conditional relationships. This structure is also known as a syllogism.

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

  4. Wrong Structure / Wrong Validity13% picked this

    The only food in Diane's apartment is in her refrigerator. Diane purchased all the food in her refrigerator within the past week. Therefore, all

    The only food in Diane’s A → R apartment is in her refrigerator. Diane purchased all the R → P food in her refrigerator within the past week. Therefore, all the food R → P she purchased within the past week is in her apartment. This argument relies on reversing the conclusion. Furthermore, this argument is flawed, while the argument in the stimulus is valid.

  5. Wrong Validity6% picked this

    The only food that Diane has purchased within the past week is in her refrigerator. All the food that she has purchased within the

    The only food that Diane P → R has purchased within the past week is in her refrigerator. All the food that she has P → A purchased within the past week is in her apartment. Conclusion Therefore, all the food in A → R her apartment is in her refrigerator. This argument relies on reversing the second premise. Furthermore, this argument is flawed, while the argument in the stimulus is valid.

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