Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S1 Q17 Explanation

Warm air tends to be humid

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

Warm air tends to be humid, and as humidity of air increases, the amount of rainfall also increases. So, the fact that rainfall totals for most continents have been increasing over the past five air temperature is increasing as well.

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
17.

Which one of the following has a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning

Answer choices

  1. Correct79% picked this

    Food that is fresh tends to be nutritious, and the more nutritious one's diet the healthier one is. People today are generally healthier than

    Why this is right

    Fresh food → nutritious diet → healthier people. Then the author says, “Since healthier people is happening, it’s likely that fresh food is happening.”

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

  2. Bad Premise Match4% picked this

    Your refusal to make public your personal finances indicates some sort of financial impropriety on your part, for people who do not reveal their

    There is no A → B → C chain to work off of in the premises. This gives us “If not revealing, then probably hiding wrongdoing”, and then the argument reasons in the proper direction, rather than in reversed direction. It says, “Since you’re not revealing, you’re hiding wrongdoing”. The conclusion is also too sure of itself. The original isn’t sure of its conclusion; there is just strong evidence for the conclusion. In answer B, the evidence indicates the conclusion.

  3. Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match6% picked this

    People tend not to want to travel on mass transit when they are carrying bags and packages, and the more bags and packages one

    There is no A → B → C chain to work off of in the premises. Both relationships stem from the same trigger: If carrying lots of bags, then probably don’t want to take mass transit. If carrying lots of bags, then more awkward to travel on mass transit. And then, of course, the conclusion introduces a brand new concept of “taking an automobile”, which the original argument did not do.

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

    Statistics show that people are generally living longer and healthier lives than ever before. However, more people are overweight and fewer people exercise than

    There is no A → B → C chain in the premises. There is just a paradox about today’s people living longer and healthier, despite being more overweight and exercising less. The conclusion is not a statement of fact about the current situation, like in the original argument, but instead a general relationship about two things not be necessary to obtain some third thing.

  5. Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match7% picked this

    People tend to watch only those television programs that they enjoy and appreciate. Since there are more television viewers today than there were ten

    There is no A → B → C chain in the premises. Here’s what we’re given: If you’re watching a TV program, you probably enjoy and appreciate it. More people today watch TV. There’s no way to get an “A → C” inference from those two ingredients.

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