Logical Reasoning

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

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

Katelin says that we will be hit by a major snowstorm tomorrow.

Evidence

Katelin says we'll be Thing A predicts X. hit by a major snowstorm tomorrow.

If we are hit be a major If X happens, snowstorm, then the Y happens. antique car show will be canceled.

Conclusion

Katelin must believe Thing A believes the antique car show Y will happen. will be canceled

Evaluate

This is a flaw that has been used a handful of times throughout LSAT's history. It's assuming that someone believes an Implication of their Belief, which is flawed because we don't know whether the person has enough information to connect one belief to its implication (or whether they have the will/skill to derive inferential beliefs, if they do have that information).

For example: Katelin says that Clark Kent will be late to this morning's meeting. Clark Kent is Superman. So, Katelin probably believes that Superman will be late to this morning's meeting.

Maybe you and I know that Clark Kent is Superman, but we don't know if Katelin does. If she doesn't know "Clark Kent is Superman", then there'd be no reason for her to have any belief about Superman being late to the meeting.

Similarly, if she has no idea that (she might not even be aware there is an antique car show planned), then she might not have any beliefs about tomorrow's antique car show.

Goal

Look for an example where one Premise says "Person A believes X". A second premise should convey, "if X, then Y". And then the Conclusion should be saying, "so Person A probably believes Y."

25.

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

  1. Jorge says that given today's

    Weak Premise Match

    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".

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    Bo says that the soil

    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.

    65% picked this

  3. Wanda says that no form

    Weak Premise Match Valid Logic

    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.

    7% picked this

  4. My chemistry professor says that

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    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.

    10% picked this

  5. Dr. Bowder says that eating

    Bad Premise Match

    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, .... "

    6% 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