Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT16 S3 Q22 Explanation

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsParallel Flaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud, fraud has now been definitively established.

What this question is testing

Parallel Flaw

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
22.

The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels that exhibited in which one

Answer choices

  1. Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

    Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that house on the old list

    The conclusion is in the first sentence, and it doesn't seem to be saying that something changed. So we shouldn't dig deeper on a first pass.

  2. Correct54% picked this

    Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this

    Why this is right

    We can match this up. Conclusion something must have changed Turner must have taken a different train than normal. Evidence the way things were, X wouldn't have been true. Had she taken her normal train, she wouldn't have been in Nantes until this afternoon. But now X is true. She was in Nantes prior to this afternoon (11 am this morning).

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

  3. Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

    Norris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no doubt that she did authorize it, and

    The conclusion is in the first sentence, and it doesn't seem to be saying that something changed. So we shouldn't dig deeper on a first pass.

  4. Bad Conclusion Match Word-Bait19% picked this

    Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library yesterday, and it would have been impossible for anyone

    The conclusion is in the first sentence, and it doesn't seem to be saying that something changed. So we shouldn't dig deeper on a first pass. It also seems like "would have been impossible" is trying to bait us into liking it for superficial word similarities.

  5. Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

    LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion. He maintains otherwise, but only someone who felt badly treated would have made the

    The conclusion is in the first sentence, and it doesn't seem to be saying that something changed. So we shouldn't dig deeper on a first pass.

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