Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT18 S4 Q20 Explanation

Last year the county park system failed

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

TopicsParallel

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

Last year the county park system failed to generate enough revenue to cover its costs. Any business should be closed if it is unprofitable, but county parks are not businesses. Therefore, the fact not by itself justify closing them.

What this question is testing

Parallel

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
20.

The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled in which one

Answer choices

  1. Correct71% picked this

    A prime-time television series should be canceled if it fails to attract a large audience, but the small audience attracted by the documentary series

    Why this is right

    We have a conditional with two parts: Primetime and Not Large Audience ? Cancel Then we hear about a thing that is one part but not the other part of the trigger: This doc definitely had a Not Large Audience, but it's not Primetime. Then we conclude that "just because this thing matches part of trigger doesn't mean it justifies outcome": Not Large Audience is not sufficient reason to cancel. Orig Argument This Answer P1: X and Y ? Z PT and ~LA ? C P2: A is X. Doc was ~LA. P3: A is ~Y. Doc is ~PT. C: being X doesn't being ~LA doesn't justify Z justify C

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

  2. Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

    Although companies that manufacture and market automobiles in the United States must meet stringent air-quality standards, the OKESA company should be exempt from these

    The quickest way to eliminate this is to glance at the conclusion [conclusion], since ________ . "OKESA should be exempt" doesn't sound anything like "X does not by itself justify Y". So we could eliminate it from that. We do have a conditional with two parts: Manu and Market Autos ? Meets Standards Do we hear about a thing that is one part but not the other part of the trigger? No, it just says that "in addition to the trigger, it does other stuff".

  3. Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

    Although the province did not specifically intend to prohibit betting on horse races when it passed a law prohibiting gambling, such betting should be

    The quickest way to eliminate this is to glance at the conclusion [conclusion], because ________ . "Such betting should be regarded as prohibited" doesn't sound anything like "X does not by itself justify Y". So we could eliminate it from that. Do we have a conditional with two parts? No, so this never even gets off the ground.

  4. Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

    Even though cockatiels are not, strictly speaking, members of the parrot family, they should be fed the same diet as most parrots since the

    The quickest way to eliminate this is to glance at the conclusion [conclusion], since ________ . "Cockatiels should be fed the same diet as most parrots" doesn't sound anything like "X does not by itself justify Y". So we could eliminate it from that. Do we have a conditional with two parts? No, so this one doesn't even get off the ground either.

  5. Bad Conclusion Match19% picked this

    Since minors are not subject to the same criminal laws as are adults, they should not be subject to the same sorts of punishments

    The quickest way to eliminate this is to glance at the conclusion Since ________ , [conclusion] . "Minors shouldn't face the same punishments as Adults" doesn't sound anything like "X does not by itself justify Y". So we could eliminate it from that. Do we have a conditional with two parts? Nope. So, it's another non-starter.

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