Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S2 · Q18 Everyone who is a gourmet cook

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

Everyone who is a gourmet cook enjoys a wide variety of foods and spices.

Conclusion (it follows)

Anyone who prefers bland food is not a gourmet cook.

Evidence (since)

All gourmet cooks enjoy a wide variety of foods and spices.

Anyone who enjoys a wide variety of foods and spices would not prefer bland food.

Evaluate

When we see conditionals/quantifiers (everyone / no one / anyone) and copycat ideas ("gourmet cook" / "enjoys wide variety" / "prefers bland" are all mentioned twice), it's usually easiest to diagram the argument.

If we're savvy enough to see it conversationally, we could just say, .

But otherwise, we jot it down to see that structure: Prem: Gourmet → Enjoys Variety Prem: Enjoys Variety → ~Prefer Bland Conc: Prefer Bland -----------------------> ~Gourmet

The two premises chain together to give us Gourmet → Enjoy Variety → ~Prefer Bland

The contrapositive of that chain is Prefer Bland → ~Enjoy Variety → ~Gourmet

And the conclusion is just giving us the head to tail of that contrapositive chain.

Goal

We want to strip away the topic and see the basic structure: two conditional premises that chain together, and a conclusion that shows us the contrapositive head to tail of that chain.

Prem: A → B Prem: B → C Conc: ~C → ~A

18.

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

  1. All of the paintings in

    Bad Evidence/Validity Match

    Although it looks like it, the two premises don't chain together. And even if they did the conclusion is not the contrapositive of that chain. It's actually just the A → C connection of the chain itself. We know "if in H collection, then auctioned next week" and we know "the auction next week is by a wide variety of artists" but we can't turn that into a conditional, "If a painting is being auctioned next week, then it's by a wide variety of artists". That's basically nonsensical. Each painting is by one artist; the collection of paintings being exhibited is by a wide variety.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    All of the paintings in

    Why this is right

    These two premises do chain together to give us Huang Collection → abstract → ~next week's auction We would want the conclusion to give us the head to tail of the contrapositive, which it does: next week's auction -------------> ~Huang Collection The answer didn't need to emulate the fact that one premise was ALL and the other one was NO (because you'd have the same logical essence with any two conditional premises that chained together), but that similarity definitely makes this answer even more lovable.

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

    73% picked this

  3. All of the paintings in

    Bad Evidence Match

    The two premises don't together. They both have the same trigger. Huang Collection → Superb Huang Collection → not by Roue

    13% picked this

  4. Every postimpressionist painting from the

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The two premises do chain together (if we contrapose one of them) to get: Postimp from HC → auct next week → ~Pop from HC The chain is kind of dumb, because it's ultimately saying, "If it's Postimpressionist from HC then it's not pop art from HC". That's sort of just a common sense truth we would know no matter what: "If it's from THIS genre, then it's not from THAT genre". A matching conclusion would say, Any pop art from the Huang Collection is not postimpressionist art from the Huang Collection. But the conclusion doesn't say that. It doesn't mention postimpressionist at all.

    9% picked this

  5. Every painting from the Huang

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The two premises chain together to give us HC painting auct next week → major → ~adeq price The correct matching conclusion would say, "Anything art whose price can adequately reflect its true value is NOT a painting from the Huang Collection to be auctioned off next week". But this conclusion is much broader, talking about the prices of all the works at the auction, not just the Huang Collection paintings.

    3% 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