Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S3 · Q22 Principle: Anyone who has more

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

Principle: Anyone who has more than one overdue book out on loan from the library at the same time must be fined if some of the overdue books are not children's books and that person has previously been fined for overdue books.

Principle

Let's make sure we get all the qualifiers here on the left side.

more than 1 overdue book + at least one overdue is → must be fined not-children's book + been previously fined for overdue books

Application Conclusion

Kessler must be fined

Application Evidence

Kessler has 3 overdue books.

Evaluate / Goal

There were three criteria we had to establish 1. more than 1 overdue book 2. at least one of those is non-children's 3. fined in the past for overdue

Have we established any of these yet for Kessler?

Just #1. He has more than 1 overdue book.

Thus, our correct answer needs to establish two things: - at least one of Kessler's overdue books is non-children's - Kessler has been fined in the past for overdue books

22.

Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above application of the principle?

  1. Some of the books that

    Doesn't Establish #2

    This tells us that he was previously fined for an overdue book, but we don't know whether one of his 3 overdue books is a non-children's book. He might have 10 books out on loan, 3 of them overdue, 7 of them not overdue. The principle needs to know that one of this overdue books is non-children's, and this information isn't specific enough for us to know.

    32% picked this

  2. Correct

    One of the overdue books

    Why this is right

    This establishes both. - one of his overdue books is a novel for adults (for not-children) - he was fined previously for overdue books They tried to make this harder by using "for adults" as a proxy for "not children's books". If you caught yourself arguing with this answer, thinking, how do we know children aren't reading a novel for adults?! , it's about how these books are categorized within the library, not a real-world sense of "Who is this book for?" The library, common sense would tell us, has some books categorized as children's books and other books not categorized that way. A "novel for adults" has clearly not been categorized as a children's book.

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

    43% picked this

  3. None of the books that

    Doesn't Establish #3

    Since all of K's checked out books are non-children's, we know that the 3 overdue books must all be non-children's. But, this fails to establish that K was fined in previous years for late books.

    14% picked this

  4. Kessler was fined by the

    Doesn't Establish #2

    Now we know that he has been fined in the past for overdue books. However, we still don't know whether any of his current overdue books are non-children's.

    10% picked this

  5. Kessler has never before been

    Ruins #3

    As soon as we find out that he's never been fined for overdue books, we're done. This principle won't apply to him.

    1% 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