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
If Juan went to the party, it is JW → ~ME highly unlikely that Maria would have enjoyed the party.
But in fact it turned out that Maria ME did enjoy the party.
It is highly likely that Juan was at ~JW [went] the party.
This argument contraposes the first premise and is a valid argument.
The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
According to the newspaper, all
According to the newspaper, ~W all eight teams in the soccer tournament have an equal chance of winning it [we will probably not win the tournament. If we do lose our goalie we will LG → W probably not win the tournament. If so [we will probably not win the ~W → LG tournament], then we will probably lose our goalie. The conclusion in the stimulus is a statement of fact, while this conclusion is a conditional relationship. Furthermore, this argument is flawed, while the one in the stimulus is valid.
1% picked this
Kapinski, our new neighbor, is
for Kapinski sells insurance. SI Most people who sell insurance SI → W are friendly. Kapinski, our new neighbor, is probably friendly This argument relies on a positive reasoning structure, while the stimulus rests on a contrapositive reasoning structure.
0% picked this
If the lottery were fair,
If the lottery were fair, the F → (PW → ~LW) person who won the lottery would not have been likely to win it. won the lottery] would have been likely to win the lottery if it were unfair This person [the person who ~F → (PW → LW) The lottery was probably ~F unfair. The complex conditionals in this answer are not present in the argument in the stimulus. Furthermore, the argument rests on an assumption and so is flawed, while the argument in the stimulus is valid.
14% picked this
If Clarissa missed the bus
Why this is right
If Clarissa missed the bus today, MB → ~WOT it is quite unlikely that she would have gotten to work on time. She [Clarissa] actually was at WOT work on time today. it is quite unlikely that Clarissa ~MB missed the bus. This contraposes a conditional relationship and matches the argument in the stimulus.
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
This year's election will probably
This year's election will probably be fair. F Popov will not win unless the election is W → ~F unfair. Popov will not win the election. ~W While this answer matches the structure of the contrapositive, it does not match the degree. The conclusion in the stimulus is "highly unlikely," while in this answer it "will not." The conclusion in this answer is too strong.
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.
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.