Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S2 · Q17 We can be sure

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

We can be sure that at least some halogen lamps are well crafted, because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at Furniture Labyrinth.

Evidence

On display at → well X → Y Furniture Labyrinth crafted

Most major lamp manufacturers Most A's have have halogen lamps on display B's that are X. at Furniture Labyrinth.

Conclusion

Some halogen lamps are Some B's are Y. well crafted.

Evaluate

The reason this argument is valid comes from the conditional rule. As soon as you establish that anything is on display at Furniture Labyrinth, then you've established that it's well crafted.

So, structurally, I wouldn't be surprised to see them tinker with the details of the "Most major manufacturers", since the Most has nothing to do with why the conclusion can be validly drawn. It could have said Some and the conclusion would be just as valid.

Goal

Look for two premises: 1 of them gives a conditional rule. The other is a fact about something that triggers the conditional rule.

The conclusion then says that the outcome of the rule applies to that same something.

17.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. We can be confident that

    Weak Conclusion Match

    The Premise indicator "for" tells us that the first claim was the conclusion. The strength of the original conclusion is "we can be sure that", whereas this conclusion is "we can be confident". That's enough of a mismatch that I would start looking elsewhere. The rest of this argument is reasonable, but it's a probabilistic argument. We are given a conditional. There's a good chance the trigger will be fired, so they conclude there's a good chance the outcome will happen.

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    We can be positive that

    Why this is right

    We have a conditional premise: Melinda writes → disturbing We have a premise that tells us that 'something' establishes the trigger: Several difference sonnets were written by Melinda And we have a conclusion attaching the outcome of that conditional to the 'something': Several difference sonnets are disturbing

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

    49% picked this

  3. We can be sure that

    Weak Premise Match Flawed Logic

    We have a conditional premise: shop in town → capable of good mech work We don't have a premise clearly telling us that 'something' establishes the trigger, though. Gianna could take her car to a shop in town. A correct conclusion would only be able to say "Gianna could get some good mech work done to her car".

    8% picked this

  4. We can be positive that

    Weak Premise Match

    We have a conditional premise: Nearby lake → teeming with healthy fish But we don't quite have a premise that tells us that 'something' establishes the trigger. We're told that there are minnows in nearby lakes, but the trigger for the conditional is just "If it's a nearby lake", not "if it's in a nearby lake". This trap answer ultimately comes down to the definition of 'teeming'. Saying that "Congress is teeming with corruption" does not mean that 100% of the members of Congress are corrupt. It just means, "There's lots of corruption there". Similarly, every lake is teeming with healthy fish just means there are lots of healthy fish in every nearby lake, not that 100% of fish in every nearby lake are healthy. Since this conditional rule doesn't guarantee that every fish in each nearby lake is healthy, there's no way to be sure that any of the minnows are healthy. Super mean way to make an answer wrong.

    21% picked this

  5. We can be confident that

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This is a valid argument. There's a conditional that gets triggered by cornmeal. The conclusion then tries to conclude the outcome of the conditional, in relation to cornmeal. The only mismatch is the strength of language in the conclusion: we can be confident (E) vs. we can be sure (original)

    13% 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