Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S3 · Q25 Keeler wanted the institute to receive bad publicity

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

Keeler wanted the institute to receive bad publicity.

Conclusion (Therefore)

It must have been Keeler who notified the press.

Evidence

Keeler wanted the institute to receive bad publicity. He and Greene were the only ones in a position to tell the press, but Greene had no reason to do so.

Evaluate

Although this argument is flawed (we aren't justified in being certain that Keeler notified the press), it's still reasonable to suspect Keeler. And the question stem isn't asking for a flawed pattern of reasoning, so we should probably just focus on how the argument works.

There are two suspects: Greene and Keeler. One has a motive: Keeler The other has no motive: Greene. Thus, it was Keeler.

Goal

Let's look for something where they restrict our available options (i.e. ), and tell us stuff that makes one option seem much more likely than the other one, (i.e. "Keeler had a motive, Greene did not").

Then the conclusion should have certain strength ("must have been") as it picks the more likely suspect.

25.

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

  1. The only people who had

    Weak Evidence Match

    This argument does restrict our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Not quite. They are similar in terms of both denying. And then we learn something about Ringwold that sounds somewhat incriminating. However, to match the original argument, we would need a premise clearly differentiating Johnson, saying "Johnson, meanwhile, says that he has never written an anonymous letter in the past".

    2% picked this

  2. Carter and Whitequill were the

    Weak Evidence Match

    This argument does restrict our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Not quite. We learn something about Whitequill that makes it seem like she isn't the culprit, but that same thing might also be true of Carter. To match the original argument, we would need a premise clearly differentiating Carter, saying "Carter, meanwhile, would not have been afraid that the bribery might be made public."

    23% picked this

  3. Correct

    Other than Helms and Lapinski,

    Why this is right

    This argument restricts our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Yes. Helms had reason to tamper, and Lapinski did not. So we choose Helms as the culprit.

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

    69% picked this

  4. When the bridge was designed,

    Weak Evidence Match

    This argument does restrict our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Not quite. We're told something that makes Fleming unlikely to be the suspect, but the same thing might be true about Solano. To match the original argument, we would need a premise clearly differentiating Solano, saying "Solano wouldn't have had a strong reason to take credit for the design, if it were hers."

    6% picked this

  5. Cutter and Rengo are the

    Weak Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    If we're peeking ahead at conclusions, this one doesn't really have a chance. It is probable strength, not certainty. We also have the same Evidence problem that all four wrong answers had. The evidence doesn't draw any clear distinction between Rengo and Cutter. We learn that Rengo has designed several beautiful monuments and has committee connections. But maybe Cutter does too. The argument needs to explicitly rule that out and make a distinction, just like the original and the correct answer do.

    1% 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