Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S4 · Q24 One is likely to feel comfortable

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

One is likely to feel comfortable approaching a stranger if the stranger is of one’s approximate age.

Conclusion

Long-term friends are probably of the same approximate age as each other

Evidence

Most long-term friendships begin because someone feels comfortable approaching a stranger

If a stranger is of the same approx. age, one is likely to feel comfortable approaching them.

Evaluation

If we’re doing flaw and we see conditional logic wording (here indicated by the sufficient trigger “if”), we should get deeply suspicious that we’re being tested on Necessary vs. Sufficient and look our for backwards or opposite moves.

Here the author provided a rule, A -> B, said that most X’s are B, and then concluded that X’s are probably A.

This is an illegal backwards move. We know that most of these deep friendships started with someone comfortably approaching a stranger.

If someone is the same age, you’ll comfortably approach them as a stranger. But there might be a million other conditions under which you’d feel comfortable approaching a stranger: Stranger at your church → comfortably approaching

You attended private school → comfortably app stranger

You can win any fight → comfortably app stranger etc.

Goal

Look for an answer that names this illegal Necessary vs. Sufficient move or one that points out that there might be other situations in which you’re also comfortable approaching a stranger.

24.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it

presumes, without warrant, that one
Too Strong: only if
The author hasn’t committed herself to this type of assumption. She might realize we’re uncomfortable approaching non-strangers quite a bit (maybe they’re an ex, or we “stole” a promotion from them). Those types of situations are irrelevant to the conversation at hand, which is about long-term friendships, which usually begin with a stranger (not a non-stranger).
3% picked this
infers that a characteristic is
Bad Premise Match
Does the author conclude that a characteristic is present in a situation? Kind of, she concludes that the characteristic of “similar age” is usually present in a situation of long-term friends. Is the evidence saying that “in most cases of long-term friends, we see the characteristic of same-age?” No. It’s saying, in most cases of long-term friends, we see the characteristic of felt-comfy-talking-to-stranger. This argument would sound like, “Since most pizzas have meat based toppings, this pizza must have a meat based topping”.
24% picked this
overlooks the possibility that one
No Impact
Would it hurt the author’s argument to make this “objection”: “Hey, author, we’re usually more comfortable approaching same-aged people we know than approaching same-aged people that are strangers”? Not at all. She’d probably agree. She probably thinks that it’s challenging to feel comfortable to approach a stranger, but that finding a stranger of a similar age makes it less uncomfortable. Since it's established that most long-term friendships start with a pair of strangers, not a pair of people who know each other, the way we feel when interacting with people we know is irrelevant to this conversation.
11% picked this
presumes, without warrant, that one
Too Strong: never, unless
All her wording is “likely, probably, most”, so she isn’t assuming anything that’s black and white like "never" / "unless".
15% picked this
Correct
fails to address whether one
Why this is right
When we're given "A ? B", and then an author illegally argues that "because something is B, it's A", we can either name the illegal Necessary vs. Sufficient move, or we can tell him that his move from B to A is flawed, because there are cases of things that are B but ~A. He moved from "since you felt comfy approaching a stranger, you must've been similar age", which was an illegal move. We can point that out by showing examples of cases in which "people were comfy approaching a stranger, even though they were of non-similar ages". Here's an easier example to process: "Short children love their Mom. Danny loves his Mom, so he's a probably short child." Analogous answer (E): fails to address whether one is likely to love their mother if they are not a short child.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
47% 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