Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S2 · Q9 No member of the Richardson

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

No member of the Richardson Theater Group is both a performer and an administrator.

Conclusion

Leon and Marta are both performers of the Richardson Theater Group.

Evidence

Leon and Marta are both members of the Richardson Theater Group. No member of the Richardson Theater Group is both a performer and an administrator. Leon and Marta are not administrators.

Evaluation

This seems like a False Choice: is every member of the Richardson Theater Group either a performer or an administrator? Maybe some of them are promoters or janitors. The author is getting boxed in for no reason, thinking that . But it's possible that you could be neither of them.

Goal

Premise 1: Nothing in this category is both X and Y. Premise 2: Thing A is in this category. Premise 3: Thing A is not X. Conclusion: Thing A must be Y.

9.

Which one of the following arguments displays a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. Not all of the employees

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match

    The first claim is "not all X's are Y", which doesn't match anything in the original, so I would stop reading there. The conclusion is also about other people, not about our two characters, so that also doesn't match the original.

    1% picked this

  2. No employee of the Tedenco

    Not a Flaw

    This is valid logic. No one at Tedenco Company is both X and Y. Since Walsh is both X and Y, then it is correct to infer that she is not part of Tedenco Company.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    No company can have its

    Why this is right

    Nothing in the category of "company" can have headquarters in both Canada and Mexico. Dumone and Tedenco are both companies. Dumone and Tedenco do not have headquarters in Mexico. Thus, they have their headquarters in Canada. We'd have a similar objection: "just because you can't have headquarters in both Canada and Mexico doesn't mean you must have your headquarters in one or the other. Maybe your headquarters is in neither one of them. (It's in the Cayman Islands, duh)

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

    86% picked this

  4. No corporate attorney represents both

    Not a Flaw

    This is valid logic. If no corporate attorney represents both Dumone Company and Tedenco Company, and Tseung is a corporate attorney who represents Dumone Company, then it is valid to conclude that she cannot also represent Tedenco Company.

    10% picked this

  5. No member of the board

    Trap

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match Not a Flaw This starts off with the "if you're in this category, you can't be both X and Y" conditional. But then it veers off into a strange math land that doesn't resemble the original. Also, the math is totally valid.

    1% 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