Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT139 S1 Q8 Explanation

When weeding a vegetable garden

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

TopicsPrinciple-Conform

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

When weeding a vegetable garden, one should not try to remove all the weeds. It is true that the more weeds, the less productive the garden. Nevertheless, avoiding the painstaking effort of finding and pulling every single productivity loss resulting from leaving a few.

What this question is testing

Principle-Conform

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
8.

The principle underlying which one of the following arguments is most similar to the principle underlying

Answer choices

  1. Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

    It is a mistake to try to remove every imperfection from one's personality. Personality imperfections make life difficult sometimes, but people cannot be truly

    The conclusion seems to match, since it's advocating that we don't try to remove 100% of imperfections from one's personality. But the evidence has nothing to do with Diminishing Returns, with comparing the high cost / low value of going from 99% to 100%. Instead, it says that something bad would result if we got to 100% (you wouldn't be truly happy).

  2. Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

    One should not try to change every aspect of one's personality. Such a radical change is more likely to make one

    The conclusion seems to match, since it's saying we should not go for 100%. But the evidence has nothing to do with Diminishing Returns, with comparing the high cost / low value of going from 99% to 100%. Instead, it says that something bad would likely result if tried to go for 100% (more likely worse off than better off).

  3. Correct85% picked this

    If one is trying to improve one's personality by removing imperfections, one should not try to remove them all. For while each imperfection makes

    Why this is right

    The conclusion seems to match, since it's advocating that we don't try to shoot for removing all imperfections. And the evidence has a similar Weighing Tradeoffs / Diminishing Returns feel. The more imperfections we remove, the better, but the last few aren't worth it.

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

  4. Weak Evidence Match6% picked this

    One who is trying to improve one's personality by removing imperfections should not try to remove them all. Granted, the fewer imperfections one's personality

    This is the same as (C) until the very last ingredient. We want the author to say, "Don't shoot for 100%. Granted, the closer you get, the better things are. But ... for those last few, the small benefit you get is dwarfed by the painstaking effort." (C): if there's only a few left, it's no longer worth it (D): it's impossible to get to 100% The original argument was never saying we shouldn't try to remove all the weeds because it's impossible to remove all the weeds.

  5. Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match3% picked this

    When one is trying to improve one's personality, one should not try to remove imperfections that do not cause one serious difficulties. Often, removing

    This conclusion is not talking about "whether you should try removing 100% of imperfections". It's talking about whether you should try removing certain types of imperfections. And the evidence isn't weighing tradeoffs and considering diminishing returns. Instead, it's talking about unanticipated negative consequences.

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