Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S1 · Q20 Only experienced salespeople

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

Only experienced salespeople will be able to meet the company's selling quota.

Conclusion

I am not an experienced salesperson.

Evidence

Only experienced salespeople will meet quota. I will only meet about half the quota.

Evaluation

When we’re doing flaw questions and see conditional wording (“only”), we should become very suspicious that the author will mess up the directionality of the conditional logic (known as the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw).

The author provides this rule: Meet quota → Experienced ~Experienced → ~Meet quota.

His move from Premise to Conclusion is saying, . That would look like this: ~Meet quota → ~Experienced

We can see that she’s reading that rule backwards. Meeting the quota is sufficient to tell us that someone is Experienced, but it’s not necessary in order to be considered Experienced.

Goal

Something with this structure: A → B. X is not A.

Thus, X is not B.

20.

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

  1. Only on Fridays are employees

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion in the original deals with one side of the conditional claim. The conclusion here is “not going to work”, which is not part of the conditional at all. That mismatch is enough to eliminate. The flaw here isn’t a reversal of logic but one of “Just because you’re allowed to dress causally doesn’t mean you have to dress casually. He could still go to work dressed formally.”

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    Only music lovers take this

    Why this is right

    Take class → music lover. Hillary is not taking class. Thus, Hillary is not a music lover.

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

    70% picked this

  3. Only oceanographers enjoy the Atlantic

    Not a Flaw

    This is valid logic. If you enjoy the Atlantic midwinter, then you’re an oceanographer. Since Gerald is not an oceanographer, we can correctly infer that Gerald will not enjoy the Atlantic midwinter. Enjoy Atlantic midwinter → oceanographer. Gerald is not oceanographer. Thus, Gerald will not Enjoy Atlantic midwinter.

    12% picked this

  4. As this tree before us

    Bad Validity Match

    This is valid logic. If you find a giant redwood, then you must be in northern latitudes. Since we found a giant redwood, we can correctly infer that we must be in northern latitudes. Find giant redwood → northern latitudes. We found giant redwood. Thus, we are at northern latitudes.

    2% picked this

  5. Only accomplished mountain climbers can

    Weaker Premise Match Weaker Conclusion Match

    This is also flawed, also a Necessary vs. Sufficient error, but it doesn’t structurally resemble the original as much as B, because this plays off a reversal rather than a negation. To match the original even more closely, we would hear, “Since Michelle can’t scale El Capitan, she must not be an accomplished climber”. Original, and correct choice B: A → B. X is not A. Thus, X is not B. Choice E: A → B. X is B. Thus, X is A

    9% 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