Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT142 S1 Q25 Explanation

Student: If a person has an immunity

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

TopicsParallel Flaw

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

Student: If a person has an immunity to infection by a microorganism, then that microorganism does not cause them to develop harmful symptoms. Since many people are exposed to staphylococcus without developing any harmful an immunity to infection by this microorganism.

What this question is testing

Parallel Flaw

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
25.

The student's argument is most similar in its flawed pattern of reasoning to which one

Answer choices

  1. Valid Logic9% picked this

    Everything morally right is just, but some actions that best serve the interests of everyone are not just. Thus, some morally right actions do

    This provides a conditional Morally right ? Just To match the original argument, we should now hear Something is Just. Thus, Something is morally right. Instead we hear Some X's are not just. Thus, some X's are not morally right. That isn't flawed logic. That's correctly reasoning via the contrapositive.

  2. Weaker Match11% picked this

    Advertisers try to persuade people that certain claims are true. Since writers of fiction are not advertisers, they probably never try to persuade

    Weaker Match: Negation vs. Reversal Weak Conclusion Match This is somewhat tempting, because we could construe the first claim as a conditional, and then the argument does botch that rule by applying it in an illegal way. But this answer basically inverts the conditional, whereas the original argument reversed the conditional. ORIGINAL THIS ANSWER Premise 1: A ? B A ? B Premise 2: Thing X is B. Thing X is ~A. Conclusion: Thing X is A. Thing X is ~B. Technically, an illegal reversal and an illegal negation are the same thing. But if you're trying to find the most similar argument, it's still more similar to match reversal with reversal, or negation with negation. Additionally, the conclusion here is not certain of itself, which is not a good match for the original conclusion, which was certain of itself.

  3. Valid Logic10% picked this

    Isabel said that she would take the medication. Obviously, though, she did not do so, because medication either cures disease or alleviates its symptoms,

    This provides a conditional take medication ? cures or reduces symptoms To match the original argument, we should now hear Isabel's symptoms are gone. Thus, she must have taken medication. Instead we hear Isabel's symptoms are not gone. Thus, she must not have taken medication. That isn't flawed logic. That's correctly reasoning via the contrapositive.

  4. Correct67% picked this

    When business owners are subjected to excessive taxation, they become less willing to expand their businesses. The recent decline in business expansions thus shows

    Why this is right

    This provides a conditional Excessively taxed ? less willing to expand To match the original argument, we should now hear Something is less willing to expand. Thus, something is excessively taxed. Indeed we do, although it is weird how the final premise and conclusion get grammatically squeezed into the final sentence. The recent decline in business expansions = business owners are less willing to expand their business. Thus, this shows their taxes are too high = they are excessively taxed It's a bit of a stinker as a correct answer because "a recent decline in expansions" is not a perfect match for "business owners are less willing to expand". In the original argument "without developing any harmful symptoms" was a strong match for "does not cause them to develop harmful symptoms". But this is the only answer choice that offered a conditional and then tried to reason backwards through it.

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

  5. Trap4% picked this

    Studies show that doctors tend to wash their hands less often than any other health care professionals. This shows that the procedure cannot be

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match Topic Trap There is only one premise, so that's already a problem for this argument to match the original. The premise isn't quite conditional; it's just tends to. It's also a big red flag when we see a similar topic (medical / disease / germs) on a Parallel or Analogy answer choice. In order to match the original argument, after the first sentence we would want to hear something like, "Betty tends to wash her hands more often than health care professionals. Thus she must be a doctor."

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