Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT134 S1 Q9 Explanation

If a child is to develop healthy

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

If a child is to develop healthy bones, the child's diet must include sufficient calcium. It therefore follows that the diets of children who do not include sufficient calcium.

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
9.

Flawed reasoning in which one of the following most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in

Answer choices

  1. Valid Logic14% picked this

    If bread is to have a firm crust, it must be baked at the right temperature. It therefore follows that bread that is not

    This presents a conditional premise, firm crust ? baked right temp And then presents a valid contrapositive conclusion, ~baked right temp ? ~firm crust

  2. Correct76% picked this

    A cake must contain the right amount of flour in order to taste good. It therefore follows that cakes that do not taste good

    Why this is right

    This presents a conditional premise, taste good ? right amount of flour and then concludes an illegal opposite conclusion, ~taste good ? ~ right amount of flour

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

  3. Different Flaw (past = future)8% picked this

    The Bake-a-Thon, which is open to contestants of all ages, has never been won by a person under the age of 30. It therefore

    This presents a conditional premise, although one that is not a timeless rule but rather a historically true universal: won contest ? was 30+ yrs old Then it illegally assumes that "past patterns will continue to apply in the future" in order to conclude this year's winner = 30+ yrs old

  4. Bad Premise Match1% picked this

    Both yeast and baking powder can cause sweet rolls to rise. It therefore follows that yeast can always be substituted for baking powder

    The premise isn't a conditional (unless you willfully force it to be). And the conclusion certainly isn't an illegal opposite. An illegal opposite conclusion would sound like, "Thus, if an ingredient isn't yeast or baking powder, then it can't cause sweet rolls to rise".

  5. Different Flaw (assumes equal chance)1% picked this

    In recipe contests, there are always more contestants in the pie category than there are in the cake category. It therefore follows that contestants

    This barely has something we could consider a conditional premise. It is a historically true universal: recipe contest ? (historically) pies > cakes We could already bail from this, but if we continued, we'd need the conclusion to give us an illegal opposite, such as, "Thus, if a content isn't about recipes, then there will be more cakes than pies".

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