Economist: Countries with an uneducated

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

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

Economist: Countries with an uneducated population are destined to be weak economically and politically, whereas those with an educated population have governments that display a serious financial commitment to public education. So any nation with a commitment will avoid economic and political weakness.

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

26.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in

Answer choices

Bad Premise Match4% picked this
Animal species with a very narrow diet will have more difficulty surviving if the climate suddenly changes, but a species with a broader diet
One of the two premises is not conditional ("changes can remove the traditional supply"), so it's not worth engaging in this one any further.
4%
Correct65% picked this
People incapable of empathy are not good candidates for public office, but those who do have the capacity for empathy are able to manipulate
Why this is right
incapable of empathy ? not good candidates ~A ? ~B capable of empathy ? easily manipulate A ? C ????????????????????????????????????????????????? easily manipulate ? good candidates C ? B (It doesn't matter to the logic whether ideas show up as negatives or positives originally. It only matters whether they keep that state or flip to an opposite state. If we say "If A, then B. A happened, so B must have happened" that would be logically equivalent to saying "If A, then ~B. A happened, so B must not have happened.")
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
65%
Bad Premise Match15% picked this
People who cannot give orders are those who do not understand the personalities of the people to whom they give orders. Thus, those who
There's only one premise, so we wouldn't bother reading this one.
15%
Weak Premise Match11% picked this
Poets who create poetry of high quality are those who have studied traditional poetry, because poets who have not studied traditional poetry are the
The two premises aren't conditionals. They're saying "X is most likely to be Y" and "Z is rarely W". Not worth reading.
11%
Weak Premise Match5% picked this
People who dislike exercise are unlikely to lose weight without sharply curtailing their food intake; but since those who dislike activity generally tend to
The two premises aren't conditionals. They're saying "X is unlikely to be Y" and "Z is generally W". Not worth reading.
5%

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