Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT155 S1 Q18 ExplanationTo achieve the traditional hotness

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

To achieve the traditional hotness of spicy cuisines, cooks use some specific kind of chili or other spice. But, as experienced cooks know, if food is sufficiently spiced it is impossible to distinguish which ingredient is of the hot spices traditionally used is irreplaceable.

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
18.

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

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct72% picked this

    It is light-sensitive pigment in fishes' eyes that makes it possible for them to see. Any one of a variety of pigments makes underwater

    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.

  2. Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

    Every country needs an adequate defense. But this can be overdone; no country that devotes the majority of its resources to the military can

    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."

  3. Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match4% picked this

    To receive a doctorate, a student must complete the required number of classes and write a dissertation. Therefore, any student who writes a dissertation

    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

  4. Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

    Attending a music concert is a far richer experience than listening to a recorded piece of music. When playing live, musicians often depart from

    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.

  5. Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

    Good cooks always select their ingredients carefully, for they know that every delicious meal is made with high-quality ingredients. Therefore, no meal

    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."

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