Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT130 S4 Q22 Explanation

A book tour will be successful

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

A book tour will be successful if it is well publicized and the author is an established writer. Julia is an established writer, and her book tour was must have been well publicized.

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
22.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most closely parallel to the pattern of flawed reasoning exhibited

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match23% picked this

    This recipe will turn out only if one follows it exactly and uses high-quality ingredients. Arthur followed the recipe exactly and it turned out.

    No need to read past the first sentence. It gives us a conditional that says: "Recipe turns out → Exactly Followed and Good Ingredients" But we needed the "and" on the left side.

  2. Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

    If a computer has the fastest microprocessor and the most memory available, it will meet Aletha's needs this year. This computer met Aletha's needs

    This gives us a conditional premise with an "and" in the trigger. And it gives us the consequence as a factual premise. But it puts both trigger facts into the conclusion. One of them was supposed to be a premise.

  3. Correct68% picked this

    If cacti are kept in the shade and watered more than twice weekly, they will die. This cactus was kept in the shade, and

    Why this is right

    Kept in Shade and Watered 2 Much → Die Kept in Shade. Died. Thus, must have been Watered 2 Much.

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

  4. Trap2% picked this

    A house will suffer from dry rot and poor drainage only if it is built near a high water table. This house suffers from

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match Not a Flaw This gives us a conditional with 2 things in the trigger. Then it gives us both trigger ideas as facts. Then it concludes the consequence. So it's just valid logic.

  5. Trap3% picked this

    If one wears a suit that has double vents and narrow lapels, one will be fashionably dressed. The suit that Joseph wore to dinner

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match Not a Flaw This gives us a conditional with 2 things in the trigger. Then it gives us both trigger ideas as facts. Then it concludes the consequence. So it's just valid logic, exactly like choice (D).

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