Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT136 S2 Q16 Explanation

The owners of Uptown Apartments

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsParallel

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

The owners of Uptown Apartments are leaning toward not improving the apartment complex; they believe that the increased rents they could charge for improved apartments would not cover the costs of the improvements. But the improvements would make the surrounding housing, which they rents. So the owners should make the improvements.

What this question is testing

Parallel

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
16.

The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the reasoning in

Answer choices

  1. Correct72% picked this

    John's injured knee does not cause him a lot of pain, so he does not want to undergo the pain of surgery to heal

    Why this is right

    John’s injured knee does not cause him a lot of pain. So he does not want to undergo the pain of surgery to heal it. But the surgery would enable him to exercise regularly again. Thus John should have the surgery. The argument recommends a course of action against the wishes of John who feels the cost of that action is too great. The evidence presents a benefit of the recommended course of action John did not consider.

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

  2. Wrong Structure / Wrong Validity8% picked this

    Since its fishing season lasts only six months, Laketown Fishing Company prefers renting boats to buying its own. But since boats can be used

    It’s [the Laketown Fishing Company] fishing season lasts only six months. Laketown Fishing Company prefers renting boats to buying its own. But boats can be used for other purposes during the fishing season. It has made the wrong decision. The evidence does not provide a benefit of buying the boats, since the other purposes are during the fishing season, when Laketown Fishing Company already has the boats they rent.

  3. Wrong Structure14% picked this

    Max's mechanic thinks there is a crack in the left cylinder head of Max's car and wants to remove the engine to check. Such

    Such a diagnostic engine removal [to check for the crack in the left cylinder head] would cost about $175, even if the cylinder head does not need replacement. Max’s mechanic thinks there is a crack in the left cylinder head of Max’s car and wants to remove the engine to check. But if the cylinder head is cracked and is not replaced, the engine will be ruined. So Max should have the mechanic check for the crack. This argument does not recommend a course of action against the wishes of Max, since Max’s preferred course of action is not discussed.

  4. Out of Scope4% picked this

    Because of dental problems, Leona cut her consumption of candy. Consequently, she learned to enjoy fruit more. Thus, dental problems, which can lead to

    Dental problems can lead to other health problems. Because of dental problems, Leona cut her consumption of candy. Consequently, she learned to enjoy fruit more. Thus, dental problems led in her case to an improved diet and better health overall. This argument does not recommend a course of action. It reasons through a causal chain about what has happened, while the argument in the stimulus is about what should happen.

  5. Wrong Structure / Wrong Validity2% picked this

    Bulk Fruit Company is deciding whether to market a new hybrid fruit. It is enthusiastic about the idea, since research suggests that people will

    Research suggests that people will come to like this [new hybrid] fruit. Bulk Fruit Company is enthusiastic about the idea [marketing the hybrid fruit]. Therefore, it is in the long-term interest of the company to market the hybrid fruit. This argument does not recommend a course of action against the wishes of the Bulk Fruit Company, since their preferred course of action is the one recommended. Furthermore, the conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

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