Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT18 S2 Q17 Explanation

Biographer: Arnold’s belief that every offer

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

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

Biographer: Arnold’s belief that every offer of assistance on the part of his colleagues was a disguised attempt to make him look inadequate and that no expression of congratulations on his promotion should be taken at face value may seem irrational. In fact, this belief was a consequence of his early experiences therefore, Arnold’s stubborn belief that his colleagues were duplicitous emerges as clearly justified.

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
17.

The flawed reasoning in the biographer’s argument is most similar to that in which one

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match15% picked this

    The fact that top executives generally have much larger vocabularies than do their subordinates explains why Sheldon’s belief, instilled in him during his childhood,

    In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, Sheldon actually has some support -- it's a fact that top execs generally have much larger vocabularies than their subordinates do.

  2. Bad Premise Match10% picked this

    Emily suspected that apples are unhealthy ever since she almost choked to death while eating an apple when she was a child. Now, evidence

    In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, Emily actually has some support -- there's evidence that apples treated with certain pesticides can be health hazards.

  3. Correct70% picked this

    As a child, Joan was severely punished whenever she played with her father’s prize Siamese cat. Therefore, since this information makes her present belief

    Why this is right

    This replicates the flaw that "even though we now know the backstory for X's crazy belief, we shouldn't be acting like X is correct to believe that". There's no actual support for X's belief, just a scarring childhood backstory to X's current mentality. Joan has no good reason to believe that cats are not good pets, so the author shouldn't be labeling that belief as justified.

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

  4. Bad Premise Match1% picked this

    Studies show that when usually well-behaved children become irritable, they often exhibit symptoms of viral infections the next day. The suspicion, still held by

    In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, there is some support for the adults' suspicion that misbehavior must always be paid for -- studies show that when good kids go bad, they get viral infections the next day.

  5. Bad Premise Match4% picked this

    Sumayia’s father and mother were both concert pianists, and as a child, Sumayia knew several other people trying to make careers as musicians. Thus

    In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, Sumayia is pulling on some potentially relevant experience -- she's actually known a lot of people who were, or were trying to be, professional musicians. Her opinion is certainly not "undoubtedly justified", but it should still be regarded with some credence. She probably has a lot of basis for comparison, when it comes to whether Anthony's habits, determination, and drive match what she's seen in her parents and her other musical acquaintances.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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