Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S2 · Q19 Team captain: Winning requires

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

Team captain: Winning requires the willingness to cooperate, which in turn requires motivation.

Evidence

Winning requires the W → WC willingness to cooperate.

Which [willingness to cooperate] WC → M in turn requires motivation.

Conclusion

So you will not win if you are not ~M → ~W motivated.

Evaluate

This argument combines two if/then relationships to conclude another if/then relationship. This argument is valid since the conclusion follows as an inference of the two premises.

19.

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

  1. Being healthy requires exercise. But

    Wrong Validity

    Being healthy requires exercise. H → E But exercising involves risk of E → RI injury. So, paradoxically, anyone who ~WH → ~E wants to be healthy will not exercise. This conclusion is out of scope, since the premises do not discuss people who want to be healthy.

    1% picked this

  2. Learning requires making some mistakes.

    Wrong Validity

    Learning requires making some L → M mistakes. And you must learn if you are to I → L improve. So you will not make mistakes M → I without there being a noticeable improvement. This conclusion reverses the inference that could be drawn from the two premises.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    Our political party will retain

    Why this is right

    Our political party will retain RS → RM its status only if it raises more money. But raising more money RM → IC requires increased campaigning. So our party will not retain RS → IC its status unless it increases its campaigning. This argument combines two if/then relationships to conclude another if/then relationship. This argument is valid since the conclusion follows as an inference of the two premises.

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

    69% picked this

  4. You can repair your own

    Wrong Validity

    You can repair your own bicycle RB → E only if you are enthusiastic. And if you are enthusiastic, you E → MA will also have mechanical aptitude. So if you are not able to repair ~E → ~MA your own bicycle, you lack mechanical aptitude.

    15% picked this

  5. Getting a ticket requires waiting

    Wrong Validity

    Getting a ticket requires waiting in T → WL line. Waiting in line requires patience. WL → P So if you do not wait in line, you ~WL → ~P lack patience. This conclusion negates the second premise.

    12% picked this

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