Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S4 · Q11 Rolanda: The house on Oak Avenue

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

Rolanda: The house on Oak Avenue has a larger yard than any other house we've looked at in Prairieview, so that's the best one to rent.

Rolanda's Conclusion

The house on Oak Ave is the best one to rent.

Rolanda's Evidence

It had a bigger yard than any other house we've seen in Prairieview.

Tom's Conclusion

That Oak Ave house wasn't the best.

Tom's Evidence

The yard's not as big as it looks, because in Prairieview the first 20 feet of yard from the street belong to the city.

Rolanda's Response

So what? How is does that make any other property we've seen better than this one? They've all been in Prairieview, so that objection you made applies to all of them.

Evaluate

How would we describe Tom's reasoning error? Well he tried to object to Rolanda's pick for which was the best house, but the negative thing he had to say about the house on Oak Ave would apply identically to all the other houses they've seen, since he's citing a city-wide Prairieview ordinance about property lines.

Is there a name for ? If there is, I don't know it.

11.

Rolanda's response to Tom suggests that Tom commits which one of the following reasoning errors?

  1. He fails to take into

    Not an Objection

    Our problem with what he did was that he complained about Rolanda's favorite house by mentioning something that was true of all the other houses being considered. He hasn't clarified that he prefers big yard over small yard. And even if you prefer a big yard you may still recognize that a small yard has some advantages (doesn't take as much work to maintain). So we can't say he failed to take into account possible advantages of a small yard.

    0% picked this

  2. He presumes, without providing justification,

    Opposite

    He's actually insinuating that, in Prairieview, you don't really have as much yard as it looks like, because the city owns the first 20 feet. He isn't clearly implying what the limits on city property are / aren't, but since he brings this up as a negative, we're more inclined to think he presumes that city property is less available for private use in at least some way.

    2% picked this

  3. He improperly applies a generalization

    Generalization is Applicable

    The generalization he makes is about property lines in Prairieview. That property line rule is intended to cover the house on Oak Ave, so he didn't do anything wrong by thinking that this rule was relevant to that property. He ignores that a generalization he applied to reject one choice would equally apply to all the other choices, because the generalization is intended to cover all those instances (i.e. houses in Prairieview).

    10% picked this

  4. Correct

    He fails to apply a

    Why this is right

    Gross. Are you serious? That's a gross correct answer. It works as a description of his flaw in the sense that he's stupidly failing to see that the negative thing he's bringing up against the Oak Ave house would apply equally to all the other houses in Prairieview that he and Rolanda have seen. By failing to consider that the "20ft of city property" ordinance would also apply to the other houses they saw, he's is .... ugh .... failing to apply this ordinance to all relevant instances.

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

    80% picked this

  5. He presumes, without providing justification,

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the Famous Flaw of Part vs. Whole, in which a trait that is true of a Part/Whole is assumed to also be true of a Whole/Part. He doesn't recycle a trait when he goes from premise to conclusion, nor does he go from talking about a part in the evidence to talking about group in the conclusion. He says, "That yard ain't as big as it looks, b/c first 20ft are city property" and therefore, "That house ain't the best". Part vs. Whole would sound more like "Because that house, which is part of Prairieview, isn't the best house for us, we can conclude that Prairieview as a town isn't the best town for us."

    8% 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