Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S2 · Q5 A person’s personality is linked

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

A person’s personality is linked to that person’s genes.

Evidence

Personality is linked to genes. Genes do not usually change over time.

Conclusion

So personality does not change over time.

Evaluate

Whether or not we feel good about articulating an actual objection to this logic, we can feel good about our ability to keep track of repeated concepts (personality, genes, don't change -- all said twice).

Premise 1 - X is linked to Y. Premise 2 - Y doesn't change over time. Conclusion - X doesn't change over time

Goal

Let's look for something that matches the structure listed above (or something that is similarly vulnerable to an objection like,

5.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    The way historians understand the

    Why this is right

    This looks dreamy. We can match it, ingredient for ingredient. Premise 1 - X is linked to Y. Historians' understanding of WWI is linked to actual events of WWI. Premise 2 - Y doesn't change over time. Actual events of WWI cannot change. Conclusion - X doesn't change over time Historians' understanding of WWI cannot change.

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

    91% picked this

  2. Market forces are to some

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    First of all, this only has one premise. That's enough to disqualify. The original argument had two premises. Secondly, this conclusion's strength of language is totally different: X could result in a change (choice A) vs. X remains unchanged over time (original)

    2% picked this

  3. It is well known that

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    First of all, this only has one premise. That's enough to disqualify. The original argument had two premises. Secondly, this conclusion's strength of language is totally different: X should be possible by doing Y vs. X remains unchanged over time (original)

    1% picked this

  4. Getting regular exercise over a

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    First of all, this only has one premise. That's enough to disqualify. The original argument had two premises. Secondly, this conclusion's type of claim is totally different: X contributes slightly to Y vs. X remains unchanged over time (original)

    2% picked this

  5. The levels of certain hormones

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    First of all, this only has one premise. That's enough to disqualify. The original argument had two premises. Secondly, this conclusion's type of claim is totally different: If X is high, then Y is high as well vs. X remains unchanged over time (original)

    5% 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