Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT132 S2 Q24 Explanation

Legal commentator: The goal

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

TopicsMust be False

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

Legal commentator: The goal of a recently enacted law that bans smoking in workplaces is to protect employees from secondhand smoke. But the law is written in such a way that it cannot from smoking in their own homes.

What this question is testing

Must be False

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
24.

The statements above, if true, provide a basis for rejecting which one of

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: how it's interpreted9% picked this

    The law will be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the intentions of the

    We didn't receive any info about how it'll be interpreted, other than that it can't be interpreted as saying that you're banned from smoking in your own house. Any other interpretation we wouldn't know about, so we couldn't contradict it.

  2. Out of Scope: supporters' beliefs3% picked this

    Supporters of the law believe that it will have a significant impact on the health

    We didn't receive any info about what its supporters believe, so we can't contradict anything about what they'll believe.

  3. Compatible9% picked this

    The law offers no protection from secondhand smoke for people outside

    This law that bans smoking in workplaces may very well only apply to workplaces and thus offer no protection outside of workplaces. In order to contradict this answer, we would have needed to hear that this law protects people from secondhand smoke in some non-work context, but we never heard that.

  4. Out of Scope5% picked this

    Most people believe that smokers have a fundamental right to smoke in

    Out of Scope: fundamental right Out of Scope: most people believe We don't have any info about what most people believe, so we can't contradict this answer. Since the law protects people's right to smoke in their own homes, this answer feels pretty compatible with the statements.

  5. Correct74% picked this

    The law will protect domestic workers such as housecleaners from secondhand smoke

    Why this is right

    This gets at that weird overlap we thought about: "what if you have employees (such as housecleaners) inside your house?" The law wants to keep you from exposing your employees to secondhand smoke, but it protects your right to smoke in your home. So, these housecleaners would be exempt from protection, because their employer (the owner of the house they're cleaning) is allowed to smoke in their own house.

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

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