Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q24 Had the party's economic theories

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

Had the party's economic theories been sound and had it succeeded in implementing its program, the inflation rate would have lessened considerably.

Evidence

Theories Succeeded Inflation been and implementing → lessened sound program considerably

Inflation didn't lessen considerably.

Conclusion

Theories weren't sound.

Evaluate

We're given a conditional premise, with an "and" in the trigger. A and B → C

Then we're given a factual premise, that the outcome didn't occur. ~C.

Finally, the author concludes that one of trigger ideas didn't happen. ~A.

The flaw here is that when you contrapose the original conditional, you would have ~C --> ~A or ~B

We can't be sure that "theories weren't sound" because it's possible that the reason C wasn't achieved was because the other half of the trigger didn't obtain, i.e. it's possible that "theories were sound" but "program wasn't implemented".

Goal

Premise 1: A and B → C Premise 2: ~C. Conclusion: ~A

It doesn't matter whether the conclusion rules out A or rules out B; as long as it only rules out one of them it's the same flaw.

24.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. If the people who inhabited

    Bad Premise Match Valid Logic

    The conditional has an "or" in the trigger, so we could stop reading there. As it turns out, if we bothered to read any more, this is actually a valid argument.

    6% picked this

  2. Many people fear that if

    Weaker Match

    This one is almost correct, but because it's couched in terms of what people fear / what workers believe, it is a sloppier match than our correct answer. This argument would match if it just said this: Opposition party wins and big wage cut ? strike ~strike. Thus, ~big wage cut But the fact that it's saying many people think "A and B ? C" workers have promised "~C" workers must think "~A" makes it a looser match

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    If the company had succeeded

    Why this is right

    We have a conditional premise with an "and" Succeeded sold subsid and bought patent ? stock 2x Then we have a factual premise denying the outcome. ~stock 2x Then we have a conclusion that arbitrarily decides that one of the two trigger ideas didn't happen. ~Succeeded sold subsid This is vulnerable to the same flaw as the original: how do we know the company failed to sell the subsidiaries? Maybe they sold the subsidiaries but didn't use the cash to purchase the new patent.

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

    74% picked this

  4. City residents were expected to

    Bad Premise Match

    We do get a conditional premise: Battle won and leaders freed ? residents support But then the factual premise isn't denying the outcome (it should say, "But residents haven't supported the rebels"), it's affirming the outcome: residents have supported the rebels. We can stop reading at that point since the structure can't match. This is doing an illegal reversal, not a botched contrapositive.

    2% picked this

  5. If the television station's new

    Bad Premise Match

    We aren't given a conditional premise with an "and" in the trigger, so we can stop reading at that point. This ends up being almost a valid argument, except it's making a term shift from "new equipment wasn't worth the investment" to "new equipment wasn't an improvement".

    12% 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