Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT15 S3 Q13 Explanation

Reptiles are air-breathing vertebrates

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

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

Reptiles are air-breathing vertebrates with completely ossified skeletons; so alligators must be air-breathing ossified skeletons.

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.

In terms of its logical features, the argument above most resembles which one

Answer choices

  1. Correct78% picked this

    Green plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen back into the air; so it follows that grass takes in carbon dioxide

    Why this is right

    We can match this up with the original: Prem: Group X has trait A. Green plants take in CO2, release oxygen. (Reptiles are air-breathing V's with ossified S) Conc: Member of Group X has trait A. Green plants take in CO2, release oxygen. (Alligators are air-breathing V's with ossified S)

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

  2. Bad Premise Match2% picked this

    Some red butterflies are poisonous to birds that prey on them; so this particular red butterfly is poisonous to

    The premise here is not telling us about a Group that all has a certain trait. The premise in the original was about all reptiles, of which alligators are one member. The premise in the correct answer is about all green plants, of which green grass is one member. The premise in this answer is about some red butterflies, and the "particular red butterfly" in the conclusion may or may not be a member of that group.

  3. Weak Premise Match8% picked this

    Knowledge about the empirical world can be gained from books; so Virginia Woolf’s book A Room of One’s Own must provide

    It's tough to say that the premise here could be construed as telling us about a Group that all has a certain trait. The premise is saying, "It's possible to gain knowledge about the empirical world from a book. It can be done." That's different from saying, "all books provide knowledge about the empirical world", which is what we would need it to say for the Conclusion to work the way it did in the original argument. In other words, the fixed version of this answer is: "Books provide knowledge about the empirical world; so Virginia Woolf's book A Room of One's Own must provide knowledge about the empirical world".

  4. Weaker Evidence / Conclusion Match12% picked this

    Dierdre has seen every film directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; so Dierdre must have seen Ali: Fear Eats the Soul,

    This argument could actually match the original, if we express it a little differently and treat "Dierdre has seen it" as the trait. Prem: Group X has trait A. Fassbinder-movies have all been seen by Dierdre. Conc: Member of Group X has trait A. Fassbinder's Ali: Fear Eats the Soul has been seen by Dierdre. If we didn't have a better option, then we could conceivably stretch this answer to work, but because we have to do manipulation to get it to look parallel to the original, this isn't as close a match as was the correct answer, which required no manipulation to look parallel.

  5. Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

    Skiers run a high risk of bone fracture; so it is likely that Lindsey, who has been an avid skier for many years, has

    The fact that this conclusion is not certain of itself ("likely" vs. "must be"), will be enough to disqualify this from consideration.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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