Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S1 · Q26 Some eloquent speakers impress

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

Some eloquent speakers impress their audiences with the vividness and clarity of the messages conveyed.

Conclusion (so)

Speakers who resort to obscenity do not impress their audiences.

Evidence

Some eloquent speakers impress their audiences.

Speakers who resort to obscenity are not eloquent.

Evaluate

Since we have repeating symbols (two instances each of "obscenity" / "eloquent" / "impress audiences"), this argument would lend itself to symbolic algebra.

P1: Some eloquent speakers impress their audiences. Some A's are B

P2: Obscene speakers are not eloquent. C's are not A.

C: Obscene speakers don't impress their audiences. C's are not B.

We can tell this argument is flawed because it's trying to prove that some people are "not going to impress their audiences", but the argument never provided any way to prove that someone isn't going to impress their audience (it didn't even provide a way to prove that someone is going to impress their audience, but at least it talked about people impressing their audience).

Goal

Ultimately, though, if we are able to see the symbolic recipe, we don't really need to possess a conversational understanding of the flaw.

Let's just find a similar structure: P1: Some A's are B P2: C's are not A C: thus, C's are not B

26.

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

  1. A culture without myths will

    Bad Premise Match Valid Logic

    Let's look at our two premises: This culture is devoid of myth. A culture without myths will lack fundamental moral certainties. Can anything be properly concluded by combining those ideas? Sure, it proves that "this culture will lack fundamental moral certainties". That's what the actual conclusion says, so this is airtight logic. The two premises here were like this: P1: This A is B. P2 All B's are C. C: thus, This A is C This inference works, because the common ingredient in the two premises is the trigger of the conditional premise. Meanwhile, in our original argument, the common ingredient was not the trigger. P1: Some A's are B P2: C's are not A C: thus, C's are not B If we rewrote Premise 2, we could make A the trigger, but then the conclusion would be different. P1: Some B's are A P2: All A's are not C. The valid conclusion would be "Some B's are not C", or "Some people who impress their audiences are not obscene". But the original conclusion is not valid, whereas the conclusion on this answer choice is.

    6% picked this

  2. There are authors who write

    Bad Conclusion Match Valid Logic

    The quickest way to distance ourselves from this answer would be seeing that the conclusion here is just a some statement, whereas the original conclusion pertained to all obscene speakers. Let's look at the two premises: - Serious authors don't write one page per day - There are authors who write one page a day and produce one book per year. Can we infer anything? Sure we could infer that some authors who produce one book per year are not serious authors. And since that is what the conclusion says, this is valid logic. This argument was essentially this: P1: Some A's are B P2: All C's are not A C: Some B's are not C. The original argument was this: P1: Some A's are B P2: All C's are not A C: thus, C's are not B

    16% picked this

  3. Cities that are centers of

    Bad Conclusion Match Weak Premise Match

    The quickest way to distance ourselves from this answer would be seeing that the conclusion here is just a some statement, whereas the original conclusion pertained to all obscene speakers. Let's look at the two premises: - Some centers of industry are not small cities - All cities that are centers of commerce are centers of industry Can we infer anything? No, we can't. The overlapping term ("center of industry") is not the trigger of the conditional. This argument looks like this: P1: Some A's are not B. P2: All C's are A. C: Some C's are B. The original argument was this: P1: Some A's are B P2: All C's are not A C: All C's are not B

    3% picked this

  4. Most farmers like living in

    Bad Conclusion Match Weak Premise Match

    The quickest way to distance ourselves from this answer would be seeing that the conclusion here is a probably statement, whereas the original conclusion was a certain statement about all obscene speakers. Let's look at the two premises: - Most farmers like living in rural areas. - Carla is not a farmer. Can we infer anything? No, we can't. If Carla were a farmer, we could infer that she "probably likes living in rural areas". This argument looks like this: P1: Most A's are B. P2: C is not A. C: C is probably not B. The original argument was this: P1: Some A's are B P2: All C's are not A C: All C's are not B

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    Sculptors sometimes produce significant works

    Why this is right

    This matches the original. Some A's are B Some eloquent speakers impress their audience. Some sculptors produce significant works of art. All C's are not A All obscene speakers are not eloquent. All musicians are not sculptors. All C's are not B All obscene speakers do not impress their audience. All musicians do not produce significant works of art.

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

    70% 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