Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S2 · Q10 The Asian elephant walks with

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 Asian elephant walks with at least two, and sometimes three, feet on the ground at all times.

Premise

The Asian elephant always has at least two feet on the ground.

Premise

Even when it accelerates, it does so by taking quicker and longer steps — not by getting all four feet off the ground.

Conclusion

The Asian elephant does not actually run.

Evaluate

The argument leaps from "always has feet on the ground" to "does not run." That requires a definition: running involves having all feet off the ground at once. Add that definition, and the conclusion follows.

Goal

An answer establishing that running requires having all feet off the ground at once.

10.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. If an animal cannot accelerate,

    Bad Description

    This connects acceleration ability to running, but the argument doesn't need that. The argument grants the elephant can accelerate (it just does so by taking quicker steps). The conclusion about not running comes from the feet-on-ground premise, not from inability to accelerate.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    To run, an animal must

    Why this is right

    This is the bridge. To run, an animal must have all of its feet off the ground at once. The premise tells us the Asian elephant always has at least two feet on the ground — meaning it never has all feet off at once. By this definition, the elephant doesn't run. Conclusion guaranteed.

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

    90% picked this

  3. The Asian elephant can walk

    Out of Scope

    This compares walking speeds across species. The argument is about whether the elephant's movement counts as running, not about how fast it walks compared to other animals' running. This doesn't bridge to the conclusion.

    3% picked this

  4. It is unusual for a

    Out of Scope

    What's "unusual" for four-legged animals doesn't define running. The argument needs a rule about what running is, not about what walking pattern is statistically common.

    1% picked this

  5. All four-legged animals walk with

    Too Strong

    This generalizes the elephant's walking habit to all four-legged animals. The argument doesn't need that. It only needs a definition of running that the Asian elephant fails to meet. Even if other animals run differently, that doesn't establish that this elephant doesn't run.

    2% 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