Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S4 · Q21 The only songs Amanda has ever

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

The only songs Amanda has ever written are blues songs and punk rock songs.

Conclusion (So)

If the next song Amanda writes is not a blues song, it probably will not involve more than three chords.

Evidence

The only songs Amanda has ever written are blues songs and punk rock songs. Most punk rock songs involve no more than three chords.

Evaluate

This argument combines several different reasoning patterns.

At the heart of this argument is a "Past = Present" type assumption. In the past, Amanda has only written B or P (blues or punk). And so the author is assuming that in the future, Amanda will only write B or P.

The argument also has the structure of a "ruling out competing alternatives". It's basically arguing,

The argument is also using a "most = probably" type move. The author is thinking,

Since there lots of repeating concepts and there are also conditionals / quantifiers, it probably makes sense to try diagramming this argument.

Goal

Let's look for something with this structure.

Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z.

We'd expect the conclusion to be a conditional, with a probable outcome, so that might be an easy way to get rid of some answers.

21.

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

  1. The only pets the Gupta

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This one is pretty close. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. The only Gupta pets in the past have been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If the next Gupta pet is a parrot, it will probably be very noisy. This would have worked if only the conclusion had said, "If the next pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy".

    6% picked this

  2. Most parrots are very noisy.

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion is past-looking. Thus, it won't be able to replicate that "Past = Present/Future" aspect of the original argument. This argument also has a flaw in that it's possible that most fish are also very noisy. Unless the argument rules out that possibility, we can't conclude that any past noisy pet was probably a parrot.

    2% picked this

  3. All the pets the Gupta

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This one is also very close. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. All the Gupta pets in the past have been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If any future Gupta pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy. The only difference here is that the conclusion isn't about "the next pet", it's about all future pets. This answer would work if the original argument had concluded, "So any future songs Amanda writes that aren't blues will probably not involve more than three chords."

    28% picked this

  4. Every pet the Gupta family

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This one works until the conclusion. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. Every Gupta pet in the past has been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If the next Gupta pet is not a parrot, it will probably not be very noisy. This conclusion, symbolically, is saying, Conclusion: If the next X is not B, it will probably not have trait Z.

    27% picked this

  5. Correct

    The Gupta family has never

    Why this is right

    This one works top to bottom. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. The only Gupta pets in the past has been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If the next Gupta pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy. LSAC tried to fool us by burying the "if" trigger in the conclusion later in the sentence, and by forcing us to rephrase the first sentence into "the only X's have been A or B" form.

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

    36% 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