Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S3 · Q25 Journalist: The trade union members

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

Journalist: The trade union members at AutoFaber Inc. are planning to go on strike.

Evidence

Union planning to strike. A is planning to do X

An arbitrator could avert Something could the strike, only if both sides stop X, but only if accepted it as binding. it were Y.

Past history suggests History says they won't accept as binding. won't be Y.

Conclusion

A trade union strike is likely. A is likely to do X

Evaluation

Because of the "only if", it's worth thinking of this conditionally if you want to write an algebraic recipe.

But the gist of the argument can also be conversational: Something's about to happen. A potential solution hinges on some requirement, and if the past repeats itself, we won't hit that requirement. So that thing is likely to happen.

Goal

The most visible thing to latch onto would probably be the conditional: something is required, but historically we haven't achieved that condition

25.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the journalist's argument?

  1. The company will downsize unless

    No Historical Pessimism

    The first sentence gives us a requirement: we need to issue more stock. If this matched the original argument, it would have a premise that says "in past cases, we didn't issue more stock". This conclusion is also pretty airtight, whereas the original argument hinges on a reasonable but loose assumption that what was true in the past will be true again this time.

    3% picked this

  2. Rodriguez will donate her paintings

    No Historical Pessimism

    We start off with a requirement: the new wing must be named after her. To match the original, we would need a premise that sounds like, "Judging by the past, the new wing isn't gonna be named after her". This argument also commits a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. The premises establish that Rodriguez will be the person the new wing could be named after, but the first sentence doesn't guarantee that in such a case Rodriguez will definitely donate her paintings.

    7% picked this

  3. Reynolds and Khripkova would not

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Something vaguely sounds like two requirements: if you're gonna be good business partners, you have to be able to get along with each other most of the time and you have to be able to resolve quarrels. There's a little bit of, "Judging by history, these two people won't be able to meet those conditions" since it says they are constantly squabbling. But we're missing the original's extra ingredients: someone is planning to do something. The requirement relates to the one means of avoiding that. Once the requirement is drowned by historical pessimism, the argument is supposed to conclude that the plan will likely happen.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    Lopez will run in tomorrow's

    Why this is right

    Not perfect, but closest. In the original, a union was planning to strike and the conclusion is that they likely will strike. In this one, a person is planning to run a marathon, and the conclusion is that he likely will not win it. That's very different. LSAT seemed to only give us the part of the argument that was "requirement for X + historical precedent that the requirement won't happen = X unlikely to happen" Lopez is running in A is planning to do X tomorrow's marathon He'll win it only if Something hinges sponsors keep him on Y hydrated His sponsors are in past cases known to be bad Y didn't happen at hydrating Thus, Lopez Thus, It probably won't probably won't have X win.

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

    84% picked this

  5. The new course in microeconomics

    No Requirement / Historical Precedent

    The conditional here is a sufficient: if we have a qualified instructor, we'll do spring. It doesn't say that's the only way we'll do it in the spring. And then there's no historical precedent making it sound like in the past we couldn't find a qualified instructor.

    5% 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