Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S3 · Q22 Since anyone who makes

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

Since anyone who makes an agreement has an obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement, it follows that anyone who is obligated to perform an action has agreed to perform that action.

Conclusion

Saying "you have a legal obligation" to do something is the same as saying that "you're required to fulfill your agreement" do perform that action.

Evidence (Intermediate Conclusion)

If you're obligated to do something, then you've agreed to do it.

Evidence

If make an agreement to do something, then you're obligated to do it

Evaluation

The question stem oddly asks about the arguments flaws. The argument makes two moves, so maybe we need to critique each one. Here's the structure:

Since [ claim 1 ], it follows that [ claim 2 ]. Hence, [ claim 3 ].

Going from 1 to 2, the author performs an illegal reversal: Since "make agreement → obligated to do it", it follows that "obligated → made agreement".

Going from 2 to 3, the author adds the idea of "legal", a specific type of obligation. Claim 2: "obligated → made agreement" Hence, "legal obligation → made agreement"

Goal

We need an answer that calls out the illegal reversal (Necessary vs. Sufficient) and that calls out the weird conflation of "being obligated" vs. "being legally obligated".

22.

Which one of the following statements most accurately characterizes the argument's reasoning flaws?

The argument fails to make
Out of Scope: "good consequences"
I would stop reading once we get to "good consequences", as evaluating whether any of these obligations are good/bad is out of scope.
6% picked this
The argument takes for granted
Opposite
The first half of this kills the answer enough to stop reading. The argument is failing to consider that there might be an obligation that isn't something you've agreed to. This answer says the author is actually assuming that. When the author makes her illegal reversal, she assumes that obligations only come from agreements made.
16% picked this
The argument contains a premise
Not Circular
Stop reading after the first ingredient accuses the argument of Circular Reasoning, which did not happen. The 2nd half is also messed up, since the concept of "should agree" is out of scope.
4% picked this
Correct
The argument treats a condition
Why this is right
The first flaw was an illegal reversal of conditional logic, which is known as Necessary vs. Sufficient. The second flaw involved going from "if you have an obligation ? " to "if you have a legal obligation ? ", so the author is thinking, "If you have an obligation, then I guess we're talking about a legal obligation".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% picked this
The argument rests on an
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: "ambiguous use of action" / "unwilling to perform" The term "action" is used consistently in a vague but perfectly understandable way. The use of a term in two different senses is a Famous Flaw (usually wrong answer) called Equivocation. No part of the argument is speaking about whether people are willing / unwilling to fulfill their agreements and obligations. It is only speaking about how they are obligated to perform them.
2% 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