Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S3 · Q13 Pollution is a problem wherever

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

Pollution is a problem wherever there are people who are indifferent to their environment, and nature’s balance is harmed wherever there is pollution.

Evidence

conditional (wherever) people indifferent to environment → pollution a problem

conditional (wherever) Pollution → nature's balance is harmed

Conclusion

conditional (wherever) people indifferent to environment → nature's balanced harmed

Evaluate

This is probably the most classic recipe for Parallel problems: two conditionals that chain together. In this case, the conclusion just makes the conditional A → C inference.

We might have paused wondering if we can chain together the 2nd claim with the 1st claim.

Is it fair to say that "where pollution is a problem" there is "pollution"? Of course! How could pollution be a problem if there weren't pollution present?

Goal

We want a valid argument, with two conditional premises and one conditional conclusion. The premises should chain together (A → B → C) and the conclusion should just give us the A → C connection.

Premise 1: A → B Premise 2: B → C

Conclusion: A → C

13.

The reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Any dessert with chocolate is

    Why this is right

    The two conditional premises chain together: Premise 1: dessert → high in w/ chocolate calories Premise 2: high in → fattening calories The conclusion correctly provides the A → C connection: Conclusion: dessert ----------------> fattening w/ chocolate

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

    68% picked this

  2. Every dessert with chocolate is

    Bad Premise Match

    The two conditionals don't chain together. They have slightly different triggers and the same outcome. (For conditionals to chain, the Outcome of one has to be the Trigger of another) Premise 1: dessert w/ choc → high calories Premise 2: fattening dessert → high calories

    9% picked this

  3. Any dessert that is high

    Bad Premise Match

    The two conditionals don't chain together. They have the same trigger. (For conditionals to chain, the Outcome of one has to be the Trigger of another) Premise 1: high calorie dessert → choc in it Premise 2: high calorie dessert → fattening

    12% picked this

  4. Every dessert with chocolate is

    Reversed Conclusion Invalid Logic

    The two conditional premises chain together: Premise 1: dessert → high in w/ choc calories Premise 2: high in → fattening calories The conclusion incorrectly says that C → A, making an illegal backwards move. Conclusion: fattening ----------------> dessert w/ chocolate

    7% picked this

  5. Any dessert with chocolate is

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    This doesn't have three conditionals. The first premise is conditional, but the 2nd premise and the Conclusion are "many" claims, so there's no reason to read it.

    4% 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