The university's purchasing department

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

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

The university's purchasing department is highly efficient overall. We must conclude that each of its twelve highly efficient.

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

Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that exhibited by

Answer choices

Bad Conclusion Match / Weak Premise Match1% picked this
The employees at this fast-food restaurant are the youngest and most inexperienced of any fast-food workers in the city. Given this, it seems obvious
The premise isn’t really a fact about a Whole. If they referred to the whole staff as a collective, it would work, but this premise is about all the employees (make sure you distinguish between something that is true of lots of individuals vs. something that is true of a collective). Either way, the conclusion has nothing to do with recycling the same trait and applying it to each part of the collective.
1%
Reversal: Part to Whole3% picked this
The outside audit of our public relations department has exposed serious deficiencies in the competence of each member of that department. We must conclude
This goes from Part to Whole, whereas the original argument went from Whole to Part. This says that “If each member is deficient, then the entire department must be deficient.”
3%
Correct90% picked this
This supercomputer is the most sophisticated—and the most expensive—ever built. It must be that each of its components is the
Why this is right
“If the whole computer is the most sophisticated / expensive, then each part of the computer must be the most sophisticated / expensive”.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
90%
Reversal3% picked this
Literature critics have lavished praise on every chapter of this book. In light of their reviews, one must conclude
Just like choice B, this goes from Part to Whole, but we want to go from Whole to Part. This says, “If each part of this book is critically praised, then the whole book must be critically praised.”
3%
Valid3% picked this
Passing a driving test is a condition of employment at the city's transportation department. It follows that each of the department's
This isn’t part vs. whole. This is just valid logic. If passing a test is required for employment, then any employee has passed the test.
3%

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