Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT138 S4 Q21 Explanation

Each of the candidates

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

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

Each of the candidates in this year's mayoral election is a small-business owner. Most small-business owners are competent managers. Moreover, no competent manager lacks the skills necessary to be a good mayor. So, most of the candidates skills necessary to be a good mayor.

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
21.

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

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match16% picked this

    Anyone who has worked in sales at this company has done so for at least a year. Most of this company's management has worked

    Once we find that first All statement, All sales are 1+ year All X's are A. our next thought should sound like Most A's are B "Most who worked sales at least a year ..." Instead, the Most statement is saying Most B's are X. We should bail at that point.

  2. Correct60% picked this

    Everything on the menu at Maddy's Shake Shop is fat-free. Most fat-free foods and drinks are sugar-free. And all sugar-free foods and drinks are

    Why this is right

    All Maddy's menu is fat-free. All X's are A Most fat-free are sugar-free. Most A's are B All sugar-free are low-cal. All B's are C ????????????????????????????????????? Most Maddy's menu low-cal Most X's are C On Parallel questions, don't be surprised if "All / None", "Most/Few", or "Some / Not All" flip into their equivalent translation.

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

  3. Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

    All the books in Ed's apartment are hardcover books. Most hardcover books are more than 100 pages long. Ed has never read a book

    We don't really have to read this one if we look first at the Conclusion and see that it's not giving us the Most claim we were looking for. The premises actually do match up okay. All apt. books are hardcover All X's are A Most hardcover are 100+ Most A's are B All 100+ take Ed 4+ hrs All B's are C The original conclusion was "Most X's are C", so the conclusion should read "Most books in Ed's apartment take Ed more than 4hours to read"

  4. Weak Conclusion Match10% picked this

    Each of the avant-garde films at this year's film festival is less than an hour long. Most films less than an hour long do

    The quickest way to eliminate is too look for the relationship between the first All statement and the conclusion. In the original argument, the first premise was "All X's are A", and the conclusion was "Most X's are C". So whatever idea the conclusion puts after "Most" has to be the trigger of one of our conditional premises. The conclusion here says "Most movies at this year's festival", so we need to a see a conditional premise that says "All movies at this year's festival". We don't. Each avant at fest < 1 hr All X's are A. Most < 1 hr are not CS Most A's are B All < 1 hr have no interm All A's are C. (once we see this bad 3rd premise, bail)

  5. Weak Conclusion Match7% picked this

    All of the bicycle helmets sold in this store have some plastic in them. Most of the bicycle helmets sold in this store have

    The quickest way to eliminate is too look for the relationship between the first All statement and the conclusion. In the original argument, the first premise was "All X's are A", and the conclusion was "Most X's are C". So whatever idea the conclusion puts after "Most" has to be the trigger of one of our conditional premises. The conclusion here says "Most helmets w/ plastic are ____ ", so we need to a see a conditional premise that says "All helmets w/ plastic are ____". We don't. All helmets have plastic All X's are A Most helmets have rubber Most X's are B (bail as soon as you see this mismatch)

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