Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q8 Buyer: As a buyer for a large

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

Buyer: As a buyer for a large chain of department stores, I will buy a garment only if it is fashionable and not too expensive for our clientele.

Evidence

The buyer will buy a garment only if it is fashionable and not too expensive for our clientele. BG → F and ~TE

The evening dress from the fall collection by Peruka is certainly fashionable F

but the dress is far too expensive for our clientele. TE

Conclusion

The buyer will not buy that dress [garment]. ~BG

Evaluate

This is a valid argument.

The first premise has two necessary conditions that both must be met in order to buy a garment.

One of these necessary conditions will be met but the other will not.

Based on this, the conclusion states that the evening dress [a garment] will not be bought.

It can also help to look at the contrapositive of the first premise:

If a garment is not fashionable or it is too expensive then the buyer will not buy the garment. ~F or TE → ~BG

The third premise triggers one of these sufficient conditions (TE), so we can conclude that the buyer will not buy this garment (~BG).

Goal

A correct answer will probably use this same type of contrapositive logic to reach its conclusion. Look for a conditional rule about a requirement (or two), a premise saying a requirement isn't met, and a conclusion saying the trigger won't happen.

If the correct answer were a total match we'd see this: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true but Z isn't. C: ~X.

But the essence of the logic comes from Z not being true. So it doesn't matter whether the argument concedes that one of the necessary conditions is being met.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the pattern of reasoning in the buyer's argument?

A snowflake will melt if
Bad Evidence/Validity Match
This was our desired structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true but Z isn't. C: ~X. This is (A)'s structure: P: X and ~Y → Z P: X is true but ~Y is false. C: ~Z. We want an AND in the outcome, not the trigger. But that's not the big problem. The big problem is that the original argument was valid logic, via the contrapositive. Part of the Outcome was false (one of the requirements was not met), so thus the Trigger is false. This is doing an Illegal Negation, reasoning that since part of the Trigger is false, the Outcome will be false.
16% picked this
Correct
A stuffed animal, in order
Why this is right
This was our desired structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true but Z isn't. C: ~X. This is (B)'s structure: P: pass inspect → ~Sharp and Comp Sealed P: ~Sharp is true but Comp Sealed isn't. C: ~pass inspect. It's such a perfect match that we'd feel fine just picking it and moving on. There couldn't be a more similar answer than this.
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
A sidewalk is accessible if
Bad Evidence Match
This was our desired structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true but Z isn't. C: ~X. This is (C)'s structure: P: X and ~Y → Z P: X is true and ~Y is true. C: Z. This is valid logic, but it doesn't involve a requirement not being met. (And it would be losing to B, since this has an AND in the trigger, not in the outcome, like the original did). This logic works by affirming that the Trigger is true, thereby concluding the Outcome is true. The original's logic worked by saying that the Outcome was false, thereby concluding the Trigger was false.
1% picked this
A poetic translation is accurate
Bad Evidence/Validity Match
This was our desired structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true but Z isn't. C: ~X. This is (D)'s structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true and Z is true. C: X. This is an Illegal Reversal. It says that both requirements are met (whereas in the original argument, one was met and one wasn't), and then illegally concludes that the trigger is therefore true.
3% picked this
An assembly may call a
Bad Evidence/Conclusion/Validity Match
This was our desired structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true but Z isn't. C: ~X. This is (E)'s structure: P: X → Y and Z P: Y is true. C: ~Z → X The easiest tell is that we didn't want a conditional conclusion. This lacks any premise saying that a requirement isn't met. And ultimately this reasoning is an Illegal Reversal. The conclusion is thinking, "as long as the two requirements are met, the trigger will be true".
1% 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