Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S2 · Q21 The presence of bees

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

The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which, in turn, usually results in abundant fruits and vegetables.

Conclusion

Gardeners with no use for honey will not have excellent pollination

Intermediate Conclusion

Gardeners with no use for honey will tend not to have beehives

Evidence

Keeping bees is economical keep use only if use for bees → for homegrown honey. econ honey

Establishing beehive beehive → bees ensures presence of bees. present

Presence of bees is excellent bees necessary for excellent pollination → present pollination.

Excellent pollination usually results in abundant fruits and veggies

Evaluate

Good God, what a train wreck. So many premises! And two conclusions. Let's try to focus on what each conclusion is trying to prove. The intermediate conclusion is saying, . What did the evidence tells us?

So the author is definitely assuming that . Maybe people have such passion for bees that they want to keep beehives even though it's not economical to do so.

The main conclusion is saying . What did the evidence tell us about excellent pollination? It said .

So the author is assuming that . Wait a sec -- was this a rule we were told?

Close. We were told . So this author is doing an illegal negation, or what LSAT calls a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. We were told that beehives are sufficient to ensure the presence bees. We were never told that they are necessary to have bees. Maybe a lovely flower garden would be enough to attract bees.

Goal

Look for an answer testing the move from Premise to Intermediate Conclusion (just because having no use for honey would make beekeeping uneconomical, can we really say most of those people wouldn't have a beehive?), or for an answer testing the move from Intermediate Conclusion to Main Conclusion (just because they wouldn't have a beehive, does that mean they wouldn't have bees around, and thus wouldn't have excellent pollination?)

21.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the argument?

  1. The argument fails to consider

    Too Weak

    This is almost pushing at the author assumption that "if it's not economical to keep bees, people will tend not to have beehives". However, since tend to is loose and allows for a lot of exceptions, it won't really weaken the author's argument to say, "Sometimes there are other reasons why someone would want a beehive!" The author would be like, "Sure. I agree. I'm just sayin' that if they have no use for honey, then it won't be economical, so they will tend not to have one."

    8% picked this

  2. The argument confuses what is

    Trap

    Not the Rule the Author is Confusing First of all, we only have a rule about what's required for excellent pollination. There might be a different rule for what's needed for standard pollination. More importantly, the author isn't messing up the logic of "If no bees, then no pollination. The author is messing up the rule "if beehive, then bees" (she's thinking "if no beehive, then no bees").

    14% picked this

  3. The argument confuses what is

    Trap

    Not the Rule the Author is Confusing We know that excellent pollination is usually conducive to an abundance of fruits and veggies. Does the author ever make it seem like something is necessary for an abundance of fruits and veggies? No. That part of the argument isn't involved in either conclusion.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    The argument fails to consider

    Why this is right

    Is there a particular condition that would ensure the presence of bees? Yes, establishing a beehive or two ensures the presence of bees. Is the author failing to consider that bees might be present even if you don't have a beehive? Yes. In her conclusion she is thinking no use for honey → no beehive → no bees → no excellent pollination But we were never told that "if you don't have a beehive, you won't have bees". We could thwart her conclusion by saying, "Someone might have no use for honey and no beehive, but still have plenty of bees present in their yard (maybe because of a nice flower garden) and thus still have excellent pollination)."

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

    69% picked this

  5. The argument bases a claim

    Bad Evidence Match

    This is fishing for a different famous flaw, the Causal Flaw, where the evidence consists of X and Y being correlated, and the conclusion assumes that one causes the other. The conclusion does imply a causal connection between beehives and excellent pollination, but there is no premise that says that "beehives and good pollination" are correlated. We only heard that beehives and the presence of bees are correlated (to a strong conditional degree!), and that excellent pollination was also correlated (to a strong conditional degree) with the presence of bees. While both beehives and pollination are being correlated with the same thing (presence of bees), they are not being correlated with each other. The fact that X and Y are correlated with the same thing doesn't mean they're correlated with each other. Being a Senator is correlated with being a man, and being a fan of pro wrestling is correlated with being a man, but that doesn't mean there's an association between being a Senator and being a fan of pro wrestling.

    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