Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S4 · Q26 Because our club recruited

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

Because our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, we will have the best team in the city.

Conclusion

Our club will almost certainly be city champions this year.

Evidence

The best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the championship this year, and ...

Intermediate Conclusion

We will have the best team in the city.

Evidence

We recruited the best players in the city.

Evaluate

The "Because [claim 1], [claim 2]" structure of the first sentence gives us a mini-argument that says . That would be a Part vs. Whole fallacy. You could add 3 new recruits who are the best, to a team of otherwise terrible players, and not necessarily end up with the best team. Or these new recruits could have terrible chemistry. They could get injured.

But if we play along with that first mini-conclusion and pretend they'll have the best team in the city, then do we know that they are almost certain to win the championship?

There's a premise rule that says the best team will be the team that's most likely to win.

Does "most likely to win" = "almost certain to win"? No.

Sports fans may have an easier time understanding the gap here, because we know the #1 seed is always the team that's most likely to win, but they're far from almost certain to win.

"The team most likely to win" means "more likely than anyone else", but "almost certain" means like 90% or better odds.

There might be 3 teams, the Bears, the Lions, the Sharks. The team most likely to win is the Bears, with a 40% chance. The Lions have a 25% chance, and the Sharks have a 15% chance. Are the Bears, who are the team most likely to win, almost certain to win?

No, there's only a 40% they win, but a 60% chance they lose.

Goal

Look for an answer that calls out the Part vs. Whole distinction or one that calls out the difference between "higher probability than any other team" vs. "almost certain probability".

26.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. presumes, without presenting relevant evidence,

    Too Strong / Bad Premise Match

    This author presumes that an entity can be distinguished as the best on the means of how good this year's recruits were, not on the basis of competition. Since this answer also goes overboard by saying the author thinks you can only judge who's best on the basis of competition, it actually contradicts the argument.

    2% picked this

  2. predicts the success of an

    Features Weren't Irrelevant

    The author predicted success on the basis of the team having the best recruits, being the best team, and being the team most likely to win. Those are features that are relevant to the quality of that team.

    13% picked this

  3. predicts the outcome of a

    Too Strong: merely Bad Premise Match

    Does the author predict the outcome of a competition? Sure. The author predicts their team will win the volleyball competition. Does the author do this merely on the basis of comparing the various teams? No. She also mentions comparison between the recruits. Even if it weren't for the "merely", it would be a little weird to complain to the author, "How dare you predict the outcome of a sports competition based on comparing the teams involved!"

    14% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing warrant, that

    Reversal: Whole to Part

    The author's mini-argument went from Part to Whole. He presumes that "if each recruited player on this team is the best, then the whole team will be the best". This answer accuses him of arguing, "Because we have the best team, we must have the best players".

    15% picked this

  5. Correct

    concludes that because an event

    Why this is right

    Does the conclusion say that an event is more likely to occur than not? Yes, it says the volleyball team is almost certain to win the championship (which is an even stronger statement). More likely to occur than not means more than 50%. Is the evidence saying that this volleyball team winning the championship is the most likely of a set of possible events? Yes. We've been told that this team is the best team, and that the best team is the one that is most likely to win the championship. Since both parts of this answer match up with Premise and Conclusion, we can pick this answer.

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

    56% 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