Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S1 · Q22 Only a minority of those

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

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

Only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice.

Conclusion (therefore)

Some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action.

Evidence

Only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice. (rephrased: most people who engage in political action do not do so out of a sense of social justice)

Evaluate

The conclusion is just claiming that there is at least one person who has a sense of social justice, but doesn't engage in political action.

The evidence tells us about people who engage in political action, and have a sense of social justice (that's the minority) and it tells us about people who engage in political action and don't have a sense of social justice (the majority).

But the evidence never talks about people who don't engage in political action.

Goal

Since the premise and the conclusion are repeating the same symbols (engaging in political action / sense of social justice), it makes sense to write this algebraic recipe:

CONC: Some A's are not B some [social justice] are not [political action]

EVID: Only a minority of B's are A only a small number of [political action] are [social justice]

We may have to recognize the evidence turned from negative to positive. Saying "only a minority of B's are A" is equivalent to saying "most B's are not A".

22.

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning most similar to that used in the argument above?

Correct
Most scholars are not motivated
Why this is right
We can match this up, but we do need to demonstrate an understanding of how to re-write negative statements in their positive form. Any time we see any of these three negatives on the left we're supposed to be re-writing them as the positive form on the right No A's are B = All A's are not B Few A's are B = Most A's are not B Not all A's are B = Some A's are not B CONC: Some A's are not B some [prize-wanters] are not [scholars] EVID: Only a minority of B's are A (i.e. most B's are not A) most [scholars] are not [prize-wanters] Just as the original argument was flawed because it's conclusion talks about people who don't engage in political action, but it's evidence only talks about people who do engage in political action, this argument is flawed because it's conclusion talks about not scholars but it's evidence only talks about scholars.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% picked this
Only foolish politicians disregard the
Bad Premise / Conclusion Match
Neither one of these ingredients matches structurally. In the original argument, the premise was a Few / Most type claim. Here it's a conditional. In the original, the conclusion was a Some claim. Here it's a Most claim. Each of those mismatches is enough to get rid of this. The premise tries to fool people into thinking there's a match by using the word only, but it's being used completely differently from how the premise uses it. "only a minority of A's are B" = most A's are not B "only A's do B" = if you're B, then you're A
2% picked this
Some corporations only feign a
Bad Premise / Conclusion Match
Neither one of these ingredients matches structurally. In the original argument, the premise was a Few / Most type claim. Here it's a Some statement. In the original, the conclusion was a Some claim. Here it's a No / All claim. Each of those mismatches is enough to get rid of this.
4% picked this
Some parents show no interest
Bad Premise / Conclusion Match
In the original argument, the premise was a Few / Most type claim. Here it's a Some claim. That's good enough reason to bail. In addition, the Conclusion isn't recycling the ideas from the Premise, as the original conclusion did (it just moved around the concepts of engage in political action and sense of social justice). Instead, it's introducing brand new concepts, like "decisions about curricula" and "without regard for wishes".
12% picked this
Only a small percentage of
Bad Conclusion Match
In the original argument, the conclusion was a Some claim. Here it's a Few / Most type claim, because "usually" means Most. If our conclusion were "some companies that are managed badly will turn a profit", then we would want the premise to say "only a minority of companies that are unprofitable are managed badly".
11% picked this

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