Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q21 Game show winners choosing

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

Game show winners choosing between two equally desirable prizes will choose either the one that is more expensive or the one with which they are more familiar.

Conclusion

Ed will choose A.

Evidence

If win game show choose more + → expensive or prizes equally desirable more familiar one

Ed won game show. Prizes are equally desirable. Prizes are equally familiar.

Evaluation

In this valid argument, we get a conditional with an or in the outcome. The argument provides enough facts to trigger the conditional rule and to rule out one of the two options in the "or" conclusion. It then concludes that the other option must hold.

Goal

Premise 1: A → B or C. Premise 2: X is A. Premise 3: C is not happening. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Conclusion: X is B.

21.

The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the reasoning above?

  1. With a book contract, an

    Bad Conclusion Match / Flawed Logic

    This concludes that something one of the "or" options did not happen, whereas the original argument concluded that one of the "or" options did happen. This argument is actually flawed logic because "either X or Y" means "at least one of them", not "exactly one of them". If we're ever expected to think exactly one of them, it will say "but not both". So it's possible that someone gets both an advance and a guarantee.

    4% picked this

  2. When entering this amusement park,

    Bad Conclusion Match / Flawed Logic

    Similar to (A), this conclusion is ruling out the other option, although it's not even a match for the other option, it's a weirdly specific new idea about where she would have been standing. In the original argument, a premise ruled out one of the two options, and the conclusion affirmed the remaining option. In (A) and (B), we've seen the premise affirming one of the two options, and then trying to conclude that the other one (or something related to the other one) is ruled out.

    2% picked this

  3. The elliptical orbit of an

    Bad Premise Match

    Bad Premise Match: No "or" in the Outcome To mimic the flow of the original argument, we need an either/or so that can we can rule out one option and conclude the other. This conditional doesn't give us an either/or outcome.

    10% picked this

  4. New students in this program

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We do get an either/or, physics or art. But rather than ruling one out and concluding the other, the author rules them both out and concludes that the trigger will probably not happen.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    To avoid predators, rabbits will

    Why this is right

    We get a conditional either/or, double back or flee for cover. Then the facts establish that the trigger has been met (we have a rabbit that is trying to avoid predators), rules out one option (not gonna flee) and concludes the other option. Rabbit Double back + ? or Avoiding Predators Flee for cover This pursued rabbit is avoiding predators. It can't flee. ?????????????????????????????????????????? Thus, it will double back.

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

    82% 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