Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge

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

TopicsFlaw

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

Free to start

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

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner of this business I have the legal right to sell it whenever I wish. But also you claim that because loyal employees will suffer if I sell it, I Obviously, your statements taken together are absurd.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that 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

Mary's reasoning is most vulnerable to the criticism

Answer choices

Not an Objection4% picked this
overlooks the possibility that when Jamal claims that she has no right to sell the business, he simply means she has no right
This doesn't answer her concern that he is contradicting himself. It would still be a contradiction for him to say "you have the right to sell it whenever you wish, but you have no right to sell it at this time".
4%
Not an Objection9% picked this
overlooks the possibility that her employees also have rights related to the sale
If anything, Mary seems like she is thinking about the rights of the employees, since she brings up the negative repercussions that selling the business would have on them. Regardless, this answer doesn't speak to Mary's confusion about two different meanings of "legal right vs. moral right".
9%
Not a Flaw2% picked this
provides no evidence for the claim that she does have a right to
LSAT will never ask us to present proof of her business license, or anything like that. This answer doesn't have anything to do with calling out the fact that Mary thinks Jamal contradicted himself, even though he didn't.
2%
Correct84% picked this
overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds
Why this is right
Jamal was saying "of course you have the legal right to sell your business whenever you want. But it wouldn't be right for you to sell it, when it would cause your loyal employees to suffer." I might have a legal right to shoot someone that comes into my house without my permission, but someone might still say "you had no right to shoot him" if they mean, "you had no good reason to be that fearful / that aggressive".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
84%
Wrong Flaw1% picked this
attacks Jamal's character rather than his
This describes the famous flaw of Ad Hominem, but Mary's problem was committing the flaw of Equivocation. She doesn't ever attack Jamal's character.
1%

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