Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q18 To achieve the traditional hotness

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

To achieve the traditional hotness of spicy cuisines, cooks use some specific kind of chili or other spice.

Conclusion (Therefore)

None of the hot spices traditionally used are irreplaceable.

Evidence

If food is sufficiently spiced, it is impossible to distinguish which ingredient is causing the hot sensation.

Evaluate

Whenever we size up an argument on Parallel / Parallel Flaw, we're assessing whether we should try to make an ingredient-by-ingredient algebraic recipe out of the argument, or whether we should try to express its general form in a more gisty way to ourselves.

The premise here is a conditional, which argues in favor of writing the recipe, but there's only one premise, so it's not like we'll be looking at how premises combine in order to derive the conclusion.

This one feels like it lends itself more towards a slogan or a principle.

The conclusion is trying to prove that . Why? Because as long as you do thing X, you wouldn't be able to tell which of those things were used.

Goal

Let's look for a Conclusion that's saying "none of these Y's are crucial / irreplaceable" and a Premise (most likely conditional) saying,

18.

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

  1. Correct

    It is light-sensitive pigment in

    Why this is right

    This has a good Conclusion match for "none of these Y's are crucial": No particular pigment is necessary. The Premise is not a strong structural match for, "If you do thing X, you'd never know which Y was the important one." But if we flexibly adjust how we were thinking about the Premise, we can make this match. The original premise could be interpreted to mean, "Any one of these hot spices can be added in sufficient quantities to make the hot sensation possible". And that would match with this Premise, "Any one of these pigments can make underwater vision possible". This argument certainly isn't a close enough match that we should pick it and not read the other answers, but this ends up being the best available match. And it's the only answer choice with a conclusion that resembles the original's, so it's a very effective time to use the Conclusion Shortcut that sometimes gives us quick eliminations on Parallel answer choices.

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

    74% picked this

  2. Every country needs an adequate

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We peek at conclusions before we invest / waste any time in reading an answer. This Conclusion is a real bad match for "none of these Y's are crucial": Peacetime can't persist in any nation that does X. That claim is conditional, If a nation uses over then peacetime half its resources to → cannot persist support armed forces We could try to interpret the original conclusion as a conditional, traditional hot spice → not irreplaceable but they still don't feel like the same claim. The original is telling us that "none of these spices is crucial / necessary". This conclusion is saying, "For peacetime to persist, it is crucial / necessary that a nation use less than 1/2 its resources on the military."

    7% picked this

  3. To receive a doctorate, a

    Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match

    This conclusion does not sound like "None of these Y's are crucial / irreplaceable". It's saying, "If you're A and B, then you're C". That's reason enough to bail. This argument is also doing an illegal reversal (aka Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw). The premise is Receive Dr → Complete Class and Write Diss The conclusion is Complete Class and Write Diss → Receive Dr

    3% picked this

  4. Attending a music concert is

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This Conclusion is the polar opposite of saying "none of these Y's are irreplaceable". This conclusion is saying that "Each of these Y's is irreplaceable". There's no reason to read the rest of this with such a non-starter conclusion.

    11% picked this

  5. Good cooks always select their

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The original Conclusion was saying "none of these Y's are crucial / necessary", whereas this conclusion is saying "for a delicious meal, it is crucial / necessary that you have high-quality ingredients."

    5% 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