Logical Reasoning

PT16 · S3 · Q22 Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s

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

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light.

Conclusion

There must be new evidence relating to Jamison's activities that have come to light.

Evidence

On the basis of previously available evidence, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was involved with the fraud, but Jamison's involvement with fraud has now been definitively established.

Evaluate

At its core, this argument is just saying,

Conc: something must have changed

Evid: the way things were, X wouldn't have been true. But now X is true.

This is, in essence, contrapositive logic.

Goal

Let's look for something that matches that sort of structure. It should have two premises that are saying, and then concluding "so something must have changed".

22.

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

  1. Smith must not have purchased

    Bad Conclusion Match

    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.

    13% picked this

  2. Correct

    Turner must not have taken

    Why this is right

    We can match this up. This engages the same style of contrapositive logic. 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 seen in Nantes at 11 am Conclusion something must have changed Turner must have taken a different train than normal.

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

    55% picked this

  3. Norris must have lied when

    Bad Conclusion Match

    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.

    6% picked this

  4. Waugh must have known that

    Bad Conclusion Match Word-Bait

    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.

    18% picked this

  5. LaForte must have deeply resented

    Bad Conclusion Match

    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.

    8% 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