Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT152 S1 Q23 Explanation

Male boto dolphins often carry objects

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

Male boto dolphins often carry objects such as weeds or sticks. Researchers first thought this was play behavior, but it is more likely to be a mating display. If it were play rather than a mating display, we would the behavior, but only adult males do.

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
23.

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

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match6% picked this

    If there is a lot of traffic today, then Phyllis will probably be late to the meeting. But I expect light traffic today. So

    The first premise is a conditional If X, then W. The other premise should be a fact that triggers the contrapositive: W is not the case. The 2nd sentence + Conclusion should have said "But Phyliis won't be late to the meeting. Thus, there probably isn't a lot of traffic today."

  2. Bad Premise Match6% picked this

    I expect the arborist to determine that this tree is diseased. If the arborist finds that the tree is diseased, then the tree will

    In (A), they gave us a conditional, and then the fact was the opposite of the trigger. In (B), they give us a conditional, and then the fact confirms the trigger. What we want is a conditional, and then the fact is the opposite of the outcome. Given the conditional, arborist finds tree is diseased ? tree will be cut down we would want a factual premise saying "but the tree will not be cut down".

  3. Bad Premise Match19% picked this

    If the weather forecast called for heavy snow, then I would have expected Roy to cancel his trip to his mountain cabin. Indeed, Roy

    In (A), they gave us a conditional, and then the fact was the opposite of the trigger. In (B), they gave us a conditional, and then the fact confirmed the trigger. In (C), they give us a conditional, and then the fact confirms the outcome. What we want is a conditional, and then the fact is the opposite of the outcome. Given the conditional, forecast called for big snow ? Roy cancels trip we would want a factual premise saying "Roy will not cancel his trip".

  4. Correct68% picked this

    If construction of that building were on schedule, then I would expect the foundation to have been completed already. But work on the foundation

    Why this is right

    Given the conditional, construction on schedule ? foundation done we would want a factual premise saying "but the foundation isn't done". That's what we get. Then the conclusion should be the opposite of the trigger, "so the construction isn't on schedule" and that's what saying "construction is behind schedule" means. They preserved the probable strength of the conclusion: "probably behind schedule" = "more likely mating display" They didn't preserve the idea of ruling out an alternative, so some people may have started off not liking this answer because it doesn't replicate all the features of the original. But it turns out they're just replicating the contrapositive argument structure: Premise 1: X ? Y Premise 2: ~Y. Conclusion: ~X.

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

  5. Bad Premise Match2% picked this

    If Tamika makes a big sale today, I would expect her to celebrate tonight. So, since Tamika will probably make a big sale

    In (A), they gave us a conditional, and then the fact was the opposite of the trigger. In (B), they gave us a conditional, and then the fact confirmed the trigger. In (C), they gave us a conditional, and then the fact confirmed the outcome. In (E), they give us a conditional, and then the fact confirms the trigger. What we want is a conditional, and then the fact is the opposite of the outcome. Given the conditional, big sale ? celebrate we would want a factual premise saying "She will not celebrate". Instead we get "She probably will make big sale".

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