Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT126 S3 Q23 Explanation

Essayist: Computers have the capacity

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

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

Essayist: Computers have the capacity to represent and to perform logical transformations on pieces of information. Since exactly the same applies to the human is a type of computer.

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
23.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following most closely resembles the flawed pattern of reasoning

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

    Often individual animals sacrifice their lives when the survival of their offspring or close relatives is threatened. It is probable, therefore, that there is

    This only has one premise, so it’s not very tempting to analyze. The one premise here is an “often” statement, whereas the premise about computers was an “all computers” type statement. The conclusion is saying that something is “probable”, whereas the original conclusion was certain of itself: the human mind is a computer.

  2. Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

    In the plastic arts, such as sculpture or painting, no work can depend for its effectiveness upon a verbal narrative that explains it. Since

    There is a comparison made between two different things (plastic arts and poetry), but to match the original it would have to conclude that “Poetry is a type of plastic art” or vice versa. This conclusion rules out a characteristic as a criterion for judging something. That’s not even close to the type of claim the original conclusion was. **Why am I convinced that if we scoured the Internet, we could find John Lennon at some point being quoted as saying, ‘Poetry is a type of plastic art, man’**

  3. Correct81% picked this

    In any organism, the proper functioning of each component depends upon the proper functioning of every other component. Thus, communities belong to the category

    Why this is right

    This says that both organisms and communities share the trait of needing all their various parts to work properly in order to function properly. And it concludes that one thing is a type of the other, by saying “communities are a type of organism”.

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

  4. Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

    Some vitamins require the presence in adequate amounts of some mineral in order to be fully beneficial to the body. Thus, since selenium is

    I would stop reading after “Some vitamins”, since the original premise generalized about all computers. The two premises also fail to provide a similarity between two things, and the conclusion fails to say that one thing is a type of another thing.

  5. Weak Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

    Friendship often involves obligations whose fulfillment can be painful or burdensome. The same can be said of various forms of cooperation that cannot strictly

    I would be suspicious and potentially bail upon seeing “often”, since the original premise generalized about all computers. However, the two premises do give us an underlying similarity between two things (both friendship and other types of cooperation can involve painful obligations). But the conclusion does not say that one of those things is a type of the other.

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