Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S1 · Q17 Warm air tends to be humid

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

Warm air tends to be humid, and as humidity of air increases, the amount of rainfall also increases.

Conclusion

Air temperature is increasing.

Evidence

Over past five years, rainfall totals for most continents have increased. As humidity of air increases, rainfall increases, and warm air tends to be humid.

Evaluation

The first sentence has a syllogistic feel (i.e. A is B, and B is C). We always want to pause and synthesize that "A is C" inference we get.

Given: Warm air → Humid air → More Rain Infer: Warm air → More Rain We are being fuzzy here by representing these as conditional, as the first claim is definitely not conditional. But it’s important that we hear the intended link: . That’s what allows us to spot the famous Illegal Reversal flaw. The author is saying,

Goal

We want a causal chain of A → B → C, and then for the author to say, .

17.

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

  1. Correct

    Food that is fresh tends

    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.

    82% picked this

  2. Your refusal to make public

    Bad Premise Match

    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% picked this

  3. People tend not to want

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    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.

    5% picked this

  4. Statistics show that people are

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    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.

    3% picked this

  5. People tend to watch only

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    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.

    7% 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