Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT131 S2 Q19 Explanation

At a gathering at which bankers, athletes, and lawyers

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMust be True

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

At a gathering at which bankers, athletes, and lawyers are present, all of the bankers are athletes and lawyers are bankers.

What this question is testing

Must be True

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
19.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following statements must

Answer choices

  1. Reversal2% picked this

    All of the athletes are

    This reverses the first premise.

  2. Unsupported Relationship13% picked this

    Some of the lawyers are not

    We know that all the lawyers are not bankers, but that's it. We don't have any way to judge whether any of them are athletes or not. We weren't given any information about whether non-bankers are athletes, non-athletes, or both.

  3. Correct61% picked this

    Some of the athletes are not

    Why this is right

    All of the bankers are B → A athletes. None of the bankers B → ~L are lawyers (contrapositive). So, some of the athletes ∴ A ↢some↣ ~L are not lawyers. In less diagrammed form, say that Steve is at this party and he's a banker. In virtue of him being a banker, we know that he IS an athlete and ISN'T a lawyer. So since there are bankers at the party, there has to be at least one person who is both an athlete and a non-lawyer.

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

  4. Contradiction1% picked this

    All of the bankers are

    The second premise implies B → L that no bankers are lawyers, while this contradicts that premise.

  5. Too Strong23% picked this

    None of the lawyers are

    It can be inferred that A ↢some↣ ~L some athletes are not lawyers. It cannot be inferred A → ~L that no athletes are lawyers. Or the contrapositive. L → ~A

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