Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT146 S3 Q13 Explanation

Pollution is a problem wherever

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsParallel

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

Start practicing free

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

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

What this question is testing

Parallel

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
13.

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

Answer choices

  1. Correct68% picked this

    Any dessert with chocolate is high in calories, and any dessert high in calories is fattening. So any

    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.

  2. Bad Premise Match9% picked this

    Every dessert with chocolate is high in calories, and every fattening dessert is also high in calories. So any

    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

  3. Bad Premise Match12% picked this

    Any dessert that is high in calories has chocolate in it, and any dessert that is high in calories is fattening. So

    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

  4. Reversed Conclusion Invalid Logic7% picked this

    Every dessert with chocolate is high in calories, and every dessert that is high in calories is fattening. So every fattening

    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

  5. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match4% picked this

    Any dessert with chocolate is high in calories, and many desserts that are high in calories are fattening. So many

    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.

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