Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S2 · Q9 Although Damon had ample time earlier

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

Although Damon had ample time earlier in the month to complete the paper he is scheduled to present at a professional conference tomorrow morning, he repeatedly put off doing it.

Conclusion

Because of procrastinating, Damon will have to choose between professional and family responsibilities.

Evidence

Damon procrastinated finishing the paper he's scheduled to present tomorrow morning. He could only get it done if he worked constantly until then, which would preclude him from going to his daughter's tap-dance recital, which he promised to attend.

Evaluate

The author clearly establishes that Damon can't do both of the things he's promised to do, so he'll have to choose one vs. the other.

(That conclusion isn't exactly true. He could choose to do neither and shirk both of his responsibilities. Go, Damon!)

But we don't care whether the logic is sound. We just care about describing the type of evidence used or the way the author convinced us of her conclusion.

Goal

Look for something like, , but said more in abstract LSAT language.

The argument proceeds by

providing evidence that one event
Bad Conclusion / Premise Match
Is the author's conclusion saying "an alternative event cannot occur"? No, it's saying "someone will have to choose between one of two things". Yes, that implies that the choice to do the other thing won't occur, but that is way too big a stretch of language. So we could eliminate simply from the conclusion mismatch. Was there a premise saying that one event will occur? No. The premises were about how Damon wouldn't be able to see his daughter if he spends the required time to complete his presentation. The author didn't know which way Damon would go, so there certainly wasn't a premise that one event will occur.
8% picked this
showing that two situations are
No Analogy
There was no analogy presented (although that's the most common type of correct answer on Method). There were just two events, both of which Damon was obliged to do, at least one of which he was gonna mess up.
2% picked this
invoking sympathy for someone who
Opposite
The author never says "Poor Damon" to invoke sympathy; in fact she's like, "Damon, you procrastinating tool. You done messed up again, didn't ya."
1% picked this
making clear the extent to
Out of Scope: resulted in harm
There aren't any facts about harm having been caused. We can speculate that if Damon doesn't go to his 7 year old's tap-dancing recital, there will be some harm to others, but maybe Damon goes to the recital, flakes on the presentation, gets fired, and only does harm to himself?
6% picked this
Correct
demonstrating that two situations cannot
Why this is right
Does the conclusion say that "two situations cannot both occur"? Sure, if we say "Damon cannot choose to satisfy his professional and his personal responsibilities, tonight". For him to satisfy his professional responsibilities, it would be necessary to work all night. But that is incompatible with satisfying his personal responsibility, which would require him not working and attending his daughter's recital.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% 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