Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT137 S2 Q23 Explanation

Three million dollars was recently stolen

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

TopicsParallel Flaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Three million dollars was recently stolen from the City Treasurer's Office, and, from what we know so far, we can conclude that some members of the mayor's staff are suspects. The suspects are all former employees of staff includes former employees of that office.

What this question is testing

Parallel Flaw

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
23.

The flawed nature of the argument above can most effectively be demonstrated by noting that, by parallel reasoning,

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Structure9% picked this

    some painters are sculptors since some sculptors are famous and some

    Some sculptors S ?some? F are famous. Some painters P ?some? F are famous. Some painters P ?some? S are sculptors. Both premises of this argument are “some” statements. The premises in the stimulus include a “some” statement and an “all” statement.

  2. Correct68% picked this

    some cabins are skyscrapers since all skyscrapers are buildings and some

    Why this is right

    All Skyscrapers S ? B are buildings. Some buildings B ?some? C are cabins. Some cabins C ?some? S are skyscrapers. The argument reverses the first premise. If it were the case that all buildings are skyscrapers, then the conclusion would be valid.

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

  3. Wrong Structure10% picked this

    some tables are chairs since all tables are furniture and all

    All tables are T ? F furniture. All chairs are C ? F furniture. Some tables T ?some? C are chairs. Both premises of this argument are “all” statements. The premises in the stimulus include a “some” statement and an “all” statement.

  4. Wrong Structure7% picked this

    all supermarkets sell asparagus since all supermarkets sell food and asparagus

    All supermarkets T ? F sell food. Asparagus T ? F is a food. All supermarkets T ? F sell asparagus. Both premises of this argument are “all” statements. The premises in the stimulus include a “some” statement and an “all” statement.

  5. Wrong Structure5% picked this

    all animals are dogs since some dogs are pets and some

    Some dogs D ?some? P are pets. Some animals A ?some? P are pets. All animals A ? D are dogs. Both premises of this argument are “some” statements. The premises in the stimulus include a “some” statement and an “all” statement. Furthermore, the conclusion includes an “all” statement, while the conclusion in the stimulus includes a “some” statement.

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