Logical Reasoning

PT156 · S2 · Q15 People would not follow a leader

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

People would not follow a leader if they felt that there was nothing they could gain by following that leader.

Conclusion (therefore)

Even incompetent or evil leaders bring some good to their followers.

Evidence

If people felt there was nothing to gain from following a leader, they wouldn't follow them.

Evaluate

By contrapositive, the premise is saying .

So we know that people who followed an evil or incompetent leader felt there was something to gain by following them.

But the conclusion is claiming that there was something gained by following them.

So this is a variation of the famous Intent vs. Result flaw (or Belief vs. Fact) People intended to gain something by following a leader, but whether that resulted in gain is another question.

Goal

The essence of that flaw is, . So we can look for arguments vulnerable to a similar objection.

If the answer were going to mirror the structure more, then we'd have an argument like,

Prem: if ppl didn't believe X, then wouldn't do Y. Conc: So when it comes to people who did Y, we know X is true.

15.

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

Correct
Because people expound upon only
Why this is right
This works. We get a conditional saying, "If you expound on a theory, you believe the theory is true." And then a conclusion acting like the Belief is Reality. "thus, the theories they expounded on are partially true". The premise here doesn't need to be contraposed (a closer match would be "People wouldn't expound on a theory if they didn't believe it was true), but that doesn't matter. Contraposing is just equivalently rephrasing something, so it doesn't impact the logic. The conclusion is similarly weak to the original one: "bring some good" / "contains at least a grain of truth" And the essence is the same: "Just cuz they thought they'd gain something from following the leader doesn't mean that they DID gain something" vs. "Just cuz they thought the theory was true doesn't mean the theory IS true."
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
58% picked this
Because there is some good
Bad Evidence Match / Topic Trap
Since the premise here has nothing to do with someone's Belief / Intent, there's no way we'll be able to match it up with our flaw. This is trying to get us with Topic/Word bait in the conclusion, because it's also talking about "at least some good".
29% picked this
To be a worthy leader,
Bad Evidence Match
Since the premise here has nothing to do with someone's Belief / Intent, there's no way we'll be able to match it up with our flaw.
7% picked this
Because people can never completely
Bad Conclusion Match
To some extent, the premise is discussing what people believe, but the argument isn't treating that belief as fact. To the contrary, it's saying there is a gap between what is and what they believe.
3% picked this
Even leaders of scientific revolutions
Bad Conclusion Match
To some extent, the premise is discussing what people believe (they believe the false theories of their predecessors), but the argument isn't treating that belief as fact. To the contrary, it's saying that those are false theories.
4% 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