Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S3 · Q15 There are circumstances

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

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.

Conclusion

There are times when it isn't immoral to ask for money/favor while making a threat.

Evidence

There are times when it isn't immoral to make a threat, and there are times when it isn't immoral to ask for money/favor.

Evaluation

This author has apparently never read Test 63's comparative passage about blackmail. It's all about the paradox of how these two actions which can separately be legal all of a sudden become illegal when you combine them.

Threatening someone for money/favors is extortion / blackmail, which we could potentially argue is always immoral. How did we get to this flawed conclusion?

Premise 1: Sometimes action A is X. Premise 2: Sometimes action B is X. Conclusion: So, sometimes doing action A and B together is X.

Goal

Let's find an argument that uses the same trait (e.g. "not immoral") three times, once with one thing, once with a second thing, and then a conclusion that combines those two things with that same trait.

15.

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

  1. There are many business events

    Bad Conclusion Match

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

    8% picked this

  2. It is usually easy to

    Bad Premise Match

    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".

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is healthful to take

    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.

    85% picked this

  4. Heavy trucks are generally operated

    Bad Premise Match

    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.

    3% picked this

  5. The mountain roads are treacherous

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    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.

    3% 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