Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S2 · Q7 Dana intentionally watered the plant

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

Start practicing free

Dana intentionally watered the plant every other day.

Conclusion (therefore)

Dana intentionally killed the plant.

Evidence (since)

Dana intentionally watered the plant every other day, which was too much for a succulent that needs dry soil. The overwatering killed the plant.

Evaluation

Do we really know that Dana was trying to kill the plant? Maybe she just didn't know the rules for how often to water a succulent (I just learned them while reading this LSAT question). The fact that she was intentionally doing the thing that led to the plant's death doesn't mean that she was intentionally trying to be bring about the plant's death.

Goal

We'll need an example where someone deliberately does X, which happens to cause Y, and then the author concludes that the person was deliberately trying to cause Y (when it's possible they didn't realize that X would cause Y).

7.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above?

  1. Jack stole $10 from Kelly

    Weak Conclusion Match

    We might keep this on a first pass, since someone committed an action, a result of that action happened, and the author is concluding that the someone really committed that result, in a flawed, dumb way. Ultimately, though, the conclusion isn't a solid match for the idea that "because X's action resulted in a certain consequence, X intended that consequence".

    2% picked this

  2. Celeste knows that coffee is

    Not a Flaw

    This is a pretty reasonable argument. It would be flawed to conclude that Celeste must know the combined implication of her two separate beliefs, but it's pretty reasonable to conclude that she should know the combined implication of her two beliefs.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    The restaurant owner decided to

    Why this is right

    This is a stronger match than A was, because this one, like the original argument, is about transferring over the idea of "intent" from the initial action to some eventual consequence. The owner intentionally took an item off the menu. This happened to cause Jerry's disappointment. Thus, the owner intended to cause Jerry's disappointment.

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

    88% picked this

  4. The heavy rain caused the

    Not a Flaw

    This just correctly concludes a causal chain. Rain → Dam break. Dam break → Flooding. Thus, Rain → Flooding.

    3% picked this

  5. The power plant raised the

    Not a Flaw

    This is pretty sound logic. Power plant raised the temp. Whatever raised the temp is responsible for the fish. So, the power plant is responsible for the fish.

    6% 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