Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT140 S3 Q24 Explanation

If the concrete is poured while

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

TopicsParallel

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

If the concrete is poured while the ground is wet, it will not form a solid foundation. If the concrete does not form a solid foundation, it will either settle unevenly or crack. So if the concrete settles ground was dry or it will crack.

What this question is testing

Parallel

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
24.

Which one of the following arguments is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the reasoning in

Answer choices

  1. Correct73% picked this

    The film will not be properly exposed if the camera is not working properly. If the film is not properly exposed, then the photograph

    Why this is right

    This has three conditionals. The two premises chain together. One of the premises has an "or" outcome, and so does the conclusion. Those factors would be enough for us to see this is the correct answer. Here's a more detailed breakdown. Premise 1: A → B cam not → film not work prop prop exp Premise 2: B → C or D film not → blurred or dark prop exp Conclusion: ~C → ~A or D ~blurred → work prop or dark

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

  2. Bad Premise / Conclusion Match10% picked this

    If the camera is working properly, the photograph will not be blurred. The photograph will be blurred if the film is either not properly

    This does have three conditionals. But the two premises do not chain together (they both have the same outcome, "blurred"). One of the premises has an "or" in its trigger, but the "or" should be in the outcome. The conclusion has an "and" in its outcome, but it should be an "or". Any one of those observations could have been enough to disqualify this answer.

  3. Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match6% picked this

    The photograph will either be blurred or dark if the camera is not working properly. This photograph is not blurred, so if the photograph

    This does not have three conditionals, only two. The premises don't chain together (one of them is just a fact). Neither premise is a conditional with an "or" in the outcome. The conclusion doesn't have an "or" in the outcome. Any one of those observations could have been enough to disqualify this answer.

  4. Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match6% picked this

    If the camera is working properly, the film will be properly exposed. If either the film is properly exposed or corrections are made during

    This does have three conditionals. The premises do chain together. But ... Our second conditional premise has an "or" in the trigger, rather than the outcome. The conclusion doesn't have an "or" in the outcome. Either of those observations are enough to disqualify this answer. We were looking for this: Premise 1: A → B Premise 2: B → C or D Conclusion: ~C → ~A or D

  5. Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match4% picked this

    The camera will work properly only if the film is properly exposed. But the film cannot be properly exposed if there is either not

    This does have three conditionals. The premises do chain together. But ... Our second conditional premise has an "or" in the trigger, rather than the outcome. The conclusion also has an "or" in the trigger, rather than the outcome. Either of those observations are enough to disqualify this answer. We were looking for this: Premise 1: A → B Premise 2: B → C or D Conclusion: ~C → ~A or D

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