Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT153 S2 Q25 ExplanationKatelin says that we will be hit by a major snowstorm

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsParallel Flaw

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

Katelin says that we will be hit by a major snowstorm tomorrow. So she probably believes that tomorrowʼs antique car show will be canceled, for it will certainly not hit by a major snowstorm.

What this question is testing

Parallel Flaw

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
25.

The questionable pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most closely parallel to that in which one

Answer choices, explained

  1. Weak Premise Match12% picked this

    Jorge says that given today's pollution levels, many species of migratory birds will become extinct. Thus, he probably believes that the extinctions will occur,

    We do have someone with a belief: Jorge believes many migratory birds will become extinct. Is there an implication stated of what happens if migratory birds become extinct? No, the other premise doesn't even talk about birds. It just says "pollution might not be reduced at all".

  2. Correct62% picked this

    Bo says that the soil in his backyard is poorly drained, and since raspberry bushes will not grow well in soil that is poorly

    Why this is right

    We do have someone with a belief: Bo believes his backyard soil is poorly drained. Is there an implication stated of what happens if soil is poorly drained? Yes! If soil is poorly drained, then raspberry bushes won't grow well. So does the conclusion accuse Bo of believing that "raspberry bushes won't grow well"? Yes, and it correctly matches the strength of the original conclusion (probably).

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

  3. Weak Premise Match Valid Logic8% picked this

    Wanda says that no form of coercive force is ever justified. Thus, since most people who say this believe that government should be abolished,

    We do have someone with a belief: W believes no coercive force is ever justified. Is there an implication stated of what happens if it's never justified to use coercive force? Not quite. The other premise doesn't say that something else is implied by this belief; it just says that most people who have this first belief also have this 2nd belief. So concluding that W probably also has this 2nd belief is actually a valid probabilistic conclusion, since "most" people who believe what she believes hold that 2nd belief too.

  4. Bad Conclusion/Premise Match11% picked this

    My chemistry professor says that most chemists are good at math. So, my chemistry professor might believe that most chemists are good at chess,

    The quickest way to get rid of this answer is to peek at the conclusion and see that it's saying "my chemistry professor might believe". That's different from concluding "probably believes". Concluding that someone might believe something is incredibly safe, usually valid. It would only be invalid if we had established that it would be impossible for someone to believe something. So we're not going to replicate the flaw with "might". If we happened to dig in deeper, we do have someone with a belief: chemistry professor believes that most chemists are good at math. Is there an implication stated of what happens if most chemists are good at math? Not really. There's no conditional implication. There's some chance that the chemist who's good at math is also good at chess, but the two things don't need to overlap.

  5. Bad Premise Match6% picked this

    Dr. Bowder says that eating garlic increases one?s alertness. So, since she knows that whatever improves one?s circulation increases one?s alertness, Dr. Bowder probably

    We do have someone with a belief: Dr. Bowder believes eating garlic increases one's alertness. Is there an implication stated of what happens if garlic increases alertness? No, there's just a premise saying that "something else also increases alertness". 2 problems: - we wouldn't get any implication by combining "eat garlic ? more alert" and "improve circulation ? more alert", because those two don't chain together. - this second premise is identified as something Dr. Bowder knows. In order to mimic the original argument, the second premise should be a conditional relationship, but we aren't supposed to know whether or not the person we're talking about is aware of that relationship. This answer choice is acting more like, "Katelin thinks Clark Kent will be late. And, since Katelin knows that Clark Kent is Superman, .... "

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