Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S3 · Q14 Many movies starring top

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

Many movies starring top actors will do well at the box office because the actors are already well known and have a loyal following.

Conclusion (therefore)

Movies starring unknown actors are unlikely to do well.

Evidence

Many movies starring top actors will do well at the box office, since the actors are well known and loved.

Evaluation

The author appears to be committing an Illegal Negation. We can't argue,

Goal

We need an argument that performs an illegal negation: Things that are type X have trait A. Thus, things that are not type X are unlikely to have trait A.

14.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

  1. Many animals must devote most

    Weak Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match

    The premise doesn't give us a great "things of type X', because type X would be "animals". With this first sentence, the correct conclusion would have said, "Thus, non-animal forms of life are unlikely to devote most of their energy to locating food."

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Often the presence of the

    Why this is right

    Gardens that have flower bee balm have abundant crops. Thus, gardens that lack bee balm are unlikely to have abundant crops.

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

    87% picked this

  3. A person's ability to keep

    Bad Conclusion Match

    If we're told in the premise that "people who can keep confidences .... are X", then a matching conclusion would need to say "people who cannot keep confidences are unlikely to be X", and this conclusion is nowhere near that.

    1% picked this

  4. Visual aids can be very

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is somewhat close. The author goes from "Teaching with visual aids can be effective" to a conclusion that kind of feels like "Teaching without visual aids is unlikely to be effective". But the strength of the conclusion is off: sometimes not trait A vs. unlikely to be trait A. Also, the formulation of "Thus, if visual aids were never employed" would mean that the original argument's conclusion had read, "Thus, if there were no such thing as movies with famous actors ..."

    7% picked this

  5. An understanding of the rules

    Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match

    The premise is giving us a rule that "X is necessary to Y". That's nothing like the original premise: "Many things of type X have trait A". We could stop reading there, but the conclusion is also mismatching because it doesn't flip from painters who do understand the rules to painters who don't understand the rules.

    2% 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