A psychiatrist argued

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Conclusion Match20% picked this

   Anton concluded that colds are seldom fatal on the grounds that in all his years of clinical practice, he never had a

   We were looking for "it don't exist", not "it seldom occurs". The evidence is similar, but the conclusion allows for the idea that "even though I've never seen it, it may sometimes still occur". Be wary of answers that seem to quote verbatim phrasing from the argument (unless they all do). The whole "In all his years of clinical practice" is too on-the-nose for LSAT to offer as a correct answer.

   20%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match / Reasonable1% picked this

   Lyla said that no one in the area has seen a groundhog and so there are probably no

   The original conclusion is "there is no such thing as X". This one is "there are probably no X's in the area". That's not strong enough to replicate the same flaw. It's a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw from the fact that no one in the area has seen a groundhog.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Sauda argued that because therapy rarely had an effect on her patient's type of disorder,

   The original conclusion was "there is no such thing as X". This conclusion is "there's no good reason to do X". That's a hopeless mismatch. Also, be wary of answers on Parallel that mimic the topic of the original closely: the correct answer would be very unlikely to ALSO be talking about therapy or mental disorders.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match0% picked this

   Thomas argued that because Natasha has driven her car to work every day since she bought it, she would probably continue to

   The original conclusion was "there is no such thing as X". This concludes, "Person A will probably keep doing X". That's not even close. The evidence also is not a good match for the original's, "If I've never seen it ....

   0%
5. E

   Correct78% picked this

   Jerod had never spotted a deer in his area and concluded from this that there are no

   Why this is right

   Correct: If I ain't seen it, it don't exist This one is slightly different from the original because this conclusion is at least moderately restricted to "there aren't any X's in this area", whereas the original argument was "there aren't any X's anywhere". But this is still the closest match we've got.

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

   78%