Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT154 S2 Q10 ExplanationWei: A respected automobile

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

Wei: A respected automobile expert claims that most cars will develop transmission problems unless their transmissions are serviced at least once every three years. But this claim is false. I have owned both of my cars for over twelve years, I have never neither one has ever developed a transmission problem.

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
10.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in Wei’s argument is most similar to the pattern of flawed reasoning exhibited by which

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct93% picked this

    My veterinarian told me that most cats who do not have yearly teeth cleaning will develop gum problems. However, I have not had my

    Why this is right

    This has the same structure and flaw as the original. The author is rebutting a general claim, "most cats who don't have yearly cleanings will have gum problems", by pointing to one lone data point from personal experience. "Nuh-uhhhh ... my cat didn't have yearly cleanings, and she doesn't have gum problems."

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

  2. Different Flaw1% picked this

    Car dealers claim that customers save money in the long run if they purchase extended warranties for new cars. But car dealers have a

    This is committing the Ad Hominem flaw, in which an author dismisses someone else's view because the source of that view has a biased motive or has conflicting past behavior. In the original argument, the author is disputing a general claim by saying that her personal experience doesn't line up with that claim. In this answer, the author is disputing a general claim by saying that the source of the claim has a biased interest in that claim being true.

  3. Bad Evidence Match / Additional Flaw5% picked this

    A high-ranking traffic safety official claims that driving over the speed limit increases the chance of having an automobile accident. But this claim is

    Overall, this answer is promising. An author is rebutting an expert's claim on the basis of the shallow sample of their own personal experience. However, this argument has an additional flaw. Its putative counterexample isn't really a counterexample. Suppose we're considering the offensive claim, "blond people are usually not very smart". A counterexample would be saying, "Nuh-uhh. Stacey is a blond person and she is very smart." What this answer choice did was attempt to provide a counterexample by saying, "Nuh-uhh. Stacey has black hair, and she is not very smart." When we say "Most A's are B" or "All A's are B", then the feel of a counterexample is something that is "A, but not B". This answer is providing something that is "B, but not A". For this argument to match the original, the premises should be saying, "This is not true. After all, I drive over the speed limit, but I have not had accidents."

  4. Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

    Boot manufacturers claim that a good pair of boots will last at least five years. But this claim is false. The boots I got

    Similar to (C), this has a good overall feel because the author is rebutting someone's claim on the basis of the shallow sample of their own personal experience. But just like (C), the personal experience isn't a clear counterexample of the general statement. The general statement was "most good boots last more than 5 years". A correct-sounding counterexample would be, "I had this pair of good boots, but it lasted less than 5 years". However, in this argument, the author never establishes that we're talking about a pair of good boots, so it's not clear whether it's a counterexample. (The writers seemed to even throw us the idea of "These boots I got from the Discount Store" to suggest that they're probably not high quality boots).

  5. Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match0% picked this

    A study of local rainfall shows that we have received at least 20 centimeters (8 inches) of rain per year for the past 50

    This one is miles away. There's no rebuttal to a general claim. There's no personal experience being used as the evidence.

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