Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S2 · Q23 Three million dollars was recently stolen

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

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.

Evidence

Three million dollars was recently stolen from the City Treasurer’s Office.

The suspects are all S → ECT former employees of the City Treasurer’s Office.

The mayor’s staff MS ↢some↣ ECT includes former employees of that office [the City Treasury].

Conclusion

Some members of the MS ↢some↣ S mayor’s staff are suspects.

Evaluate

The argument reverses the second premise. If it were the case that all former employees of the City Treasurer’s Office are suspects, then the conclusion would be valid.

23.

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

  1. some painters are sculptors since

    Wrong Structure

    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.

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    some cabins are skyscrapers since

    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.

    70% picked this

  3. some tables are chairs since

    Wrong Structure

    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.

    10% picked this

  4. all supermarkets sell asparagus since

    Wrong Structure

    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.

    7% picked this

  5. all animals are dogs since

    Wrong Structure

    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.

    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