Logical Reasoning

PT159 · S3 · Q18 Jack’s dog howls whenever a train goes by

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

Jack’s dog howls whenever a train goes by.

Conclusion

Jack's dog must sometimes howl while he is washing it.

Evidence

Universal premise: the dog howls whenever a train goes by. Particular premise: occasionally a train goes by while Jack is washing the dog.

Evaluate

Structure: All trains-passing → dog howls. Some washing-events overlap with a train passing. Therefore some washing-events feature howling. The pattern is: all A produce B; some C overlaps with A; therefore some C produces B.

Goal

Find an answer with the same structure: a universal "all X have property Y," a particular "some Z is X," and a conclusion "some Z has property Y."

18.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. Every serious jogger can benefit

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion here goes the wrong direction. The original concludes about the second group (washings) — some of them feature the property (howling). This answer concludes about the original group (joggers) — some of them prefer sneakers. The directions of the universal and the conclusion don't line up with the original.

    14% picked this

  2. Most serious joggers can benefit

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument uses "most serious joggers can benefit," not a universal "all/whenever." The original premise is universal: the dog howls whenever a train goes by, with no exceptions. "Most" admits exceptions, which weakens the premise type. The structures don't line up.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    Any serious jogger can benefit

    Why this is right

    This matches the structure exactly. "Any serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes" is the universal — all joggers benefit. "A few serious joggers prefer to run in ordinary sneakers" is the existential — some joggers prefer sneakers. So those few joggers both benefit (from the universal) and prefer sneakers — meaning some people who can benefit from good shoes prefer sneakers. That parallels: all trains cause howling; some washings overlap trains; therefore some washings have howling. Same shape, valid in both cases.

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

    49% picked this

  4. At least some serious joggers

    Bad Evidence Match

    This uses "at least some serious joggers can benefit" — an existential, not a universal. The original premise is universal: every train going by causes howling. Without a universal premise, the argument cannot guarantee the conclusion in the way the original does.

    5% picked this

  5. Any serious jogger can benefit

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion here is "anyone who can benefit occasionally prefers sneakers" — that is a universal conclusion ("anyone"). The original concludes only "some / sometimes." Promoting an existential premise into a universal conclusion is a different (and invalid) structure.

    24% 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