Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT131 S3 Q15 Explanation

There are circumstances

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

There are circumstances in which it is not immoral to make certain threats, and there are circumstances in which it is not immoral to ask for money or some other favor. Therefore, there are circumstances in which it or a favor while making a threat.

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
15.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in

Answer choices

  1. Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

    There are many business events for which casual dress is appropriate, and there are many social events for which casual dress is appropriate; therefore,

    The conclusion would have to say, "Thus there are many events that are both business and social for which casual dress is appropriate".

  2. Bad Premise Match1% picked this

    It is usually easy to move a piano after you have convinced five people to help you, provided that you do not need to

    This only uses the common trait twice (once in evidence, once in conclusion). We need a 2nd premise about "usually easy" and then a conclusion that combines moving a piano + that 2nd thing and says that the combined action would also be "usually easy".

  3. Correct85% picked this

    It is healthful to take drug A for a headache, and it is healthful to take drug B for a headache; therefore, it is

    Why this is right

    This says A alone is healthful, B alone is healthful, and then makes the dubious conclusion that "A and B" together would be healthful.

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

  4. Bad Premise Match3% picked this

    Heavy trucks are generally operated in a safe manner, but the ability to drive a truck safely can be impaired by certain prescription drugs.

    Premise 1: Action A is usually safe. Premise 2: Action A (combined with B) is sometimes unsafe. Stop reading there. There's no way for this to match up.

  5. Bad Conclusion/Premise Match3% picked this

    The mountain roads are treacherous after it rains, and the mountain streams are full after a rain. So, if the roads in the mountains

    The 2nd premise needs to still use the trait of "treacherous", but it doesn't. And the conclusion is a conditional claim, which the original wasn't.

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