Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q19 If you study history

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

If you study history, then you will appreciate the vast differences among past civilizations, and you will appreciate these differences provided that you reflect on your own civilization.

Evidence

Study history → appreciate differences

Reflect on your civilization → appreciate differences

Conclusion

Study history → Reflect on your civilization

Evaluate

This is a pretty common template for Parallel Flaw (in general, Necessary vs. Sufficient flaws like these are common on Parallel Flaw).

More commonly, we see A → B A → C Thus, B → C

Here, we're getting A → B C → B Thus, A → C

The hardest part of setting up this one is the novel phrasing of "provided that" to introduce a sufficient condition. If I say , it would look like Drink enough water → Won't have trouble with hike

Conversationally, here's the problem with the conclusion. If you study history, we know you'll be aware of the differences. But we don't know that if you're aware of the differences that you'll reflect on your own civilization.

The author tries to go backwards with that conditional.

Goal

- Two premises, both conditional, both have the same outcome - Conclusion tries to build a conditional between the two triggers

19.

Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its flawed reasoning to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. By studying ancient art you

    Mostly Valid

    These two conditionals don't have the same outcome. In fact the outcome of the first is the trigger of the second, so they chain together: Study ancient art ? appreciate ? deeper

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    If you learn Latin, you

    Why this is right

    Two conditionals with same outcome: learn Latin ? improve vocab study great lit ? improve vocab And a conclusion that builds a conditional out of the triggers: learn Latin ? study great lit

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

    59% picked this

  3. Traveling to other countries deepens

    Bad Premise Match

    The second premise isn't conditional ("often" encourages), so we won't have the raw materials we need. Even if it were conditional, the premises actually do form a A ? B ? C chain, so that would be another mismatch.

    4% picked this

  4. Studying hard while in school

    Weak Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match

    The two premises could be construed as conditionals, but they don't have a matching outcome. They're close, but "internalizing good habits" isn't a great match for "retaining those good habits". Study hard ? internalize good habits Maintain positive attitude ? retain those good habits If we accepted that the two right sides matched, then the Conclusion should create a conditional between "Study hard" and "maintain positive attitude", but it links "Study hard" with "higher chance of workplace success".

    6% picked this

  5. One can become informed about

    Valid

    The premises are conditionals, but they don't have the same outcome. In fact, the outcome of one is the trigger of the other, so they chain together. Read News Daily ? informed informed ? appreciate So the conclusion is correctly summarizing that A ? C connection.

    19% 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