Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S2 · Q3 Whenever Joe's car is vacuumed

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

Whenever Joe's car is vacuumed, the employees of K & L Auto vacuum it; they are the only people who ever vacuum Joe's car.

Evidence

Whenever Joe's car is JVC → K&L V vacuumed, the employees of K & L Auto vacuum it; they are the only people who ever vacuum Joe's car

If the employees of K & L K&L V → K&L F Auto vacuumed Joe's car, then Joe took his car to K & L Auto to be fixed.

Joe's car was recently JVC. vacuumed.

Conclusion

Joe took his car to K & L K&L F. Auto to be fixed.

Evaluate

This argument triggers the sufficient condition in the first of two if/then relationships that link together. The conclusion is the necessary condition of the second if/then statement.

3.

The pattern of reasoning exhibited by the argument above is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    Emily's water glass is wet

    Why this is right

    Emily's water glass is wet. W. It [the water glass] would be W → DTM wet only if she drank water from it this morning. The only time she drinks DTM → TM water in the morning is when she takes her medication. Emily took her medication TM. this morning. The argument triggers the sufficient condition in the first of two if/then relationships that link.

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

    86% picked this

  2. Lisa went to the hair

    Wrong Premise

    Either she [Lisa] went to the HS or B. hair salon today or she went to the bank this morning. But Lisa did not go to the B. bank this morning. Lisa went to the hair salon HS. today. This argument reasons by ruling out one of two possible options.

    1% picked this

  3. There are no bills on

    Wrong Premise Wrong Validity

    There are no bills on John's BT. kitchen table. John gets at least one bill J → BT per day and he [John] always puts his bills on the kitchen table. Someone else [not John] JCM. must have checked John's mail today. This argument rests on flawed contrapositive reasoning and contains only one if/then premise.

    1% picked this

  4. Linda is grumpy only if

    Wrong Conclusion

    Linda is grumpy only if she G → HC does not have her coffee in the morning. Linda does not have her HC → ROC coffee in the morning only if she runs out of coffee. Linda runs out of coffee ROC → G only on days that she is grumpy. First, this argument has an if/then relationship in the conclusion. Second, this argument reverses the logic of what could be concluded.

    12% picked this

  5. Jeff had to choose either

    Wrong Structure

    Jeff had to choose either a G or C grapefruit or cereal for breakfast this morning. Jeff is allergic to AG grapefruit. Jeff must have had cereal C for breakfast this morning. This argument reasons by attempting to rule out one of two options before concluding the option that was not ruled out. However, the argument did not completely rule out the possibility that Jeff had grapefruit for breakfast. While he's allergic to grapefruit, that does not ensure that would not choose grapefruit for breakfast.

    1% 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