Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S4 · Q21 Each of the candidates

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

Each of the candidates in this year's mayoral election is a small-business owner.

Conclusion (so)

Most candidates in this year's election have the skills necessary to be a good mayor.

Evidence

Each candidate in this year's election is a small-business owner (SBO). Most SBO's are competent managers. No competent manager lacks the skill necessary to be a good mayor.

Evaluation

With all those overlapping terms mentioned twice (SBO, competent manager, skills necessary), it makes sense to try to diagram the formal recipe of this argument.

Each candidate is a SBO. All X's are A. Most SBO's are comp mgrs Most A's are B. All comp managers have nec. skills All B's are C. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Most candid's have necessary skills Most X's are C.

Because of how many structural signposts there are here, I wouldn't bother to even think about why this is flawed. But the flaw is that there are no overlap inferences to be made by combining "All X's are A" with "Most A's are B". There doesn't have to be any overlap between X and B.

I can say "All NBA players are men" and "Most men make less than $100k". There doesn't mean there's any NBA player that makes less than $100k.

Goal

- We should be able to get rid of any answer whose Conclusion isn't a Most statement. - We can get rid of anything that doesn't have three premises: 2 All/None and 1 Most. - And to orient ourselves to a correct answer, we want to see an "All X's are A" premise as well as a "Most A's ..." premise.

21.

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

Anyone who has worked in
Bad Premise Match
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.
15% picked this
Correct
Everything on the menu at
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.
62% picked this
All the books in Ed's
Bad Conclusion Match
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"
6% picked this
Each of the avant-garde films
Weak Conclusion Match
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)
10% picked this
All of the bicycle helmets
Weak Conclusion Match
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)
7% 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