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
Anatomical bilateral symmetry (ABS) confers survival advantages on organisms.
If ABS didn't confer survival advantages, it would not be common. ABS is common.
This argument has a very classic contrapositive argument structure: Prem 1: X → Y Prem 2: ~Y. Conc: ~X
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?
Since it is Sawyer who
This provides a conditional premise, S wasn't available ? negotiations deferred So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: but the negotiations were not deferred Instead, the other premise said the opposite of the trigger: but S was available. We don't need any more reason to get rid of this one, but the Conclusion also happens to be bad, since it brings in a brand new concept (takes matter seriously) that was never even discussed in the premises.
20% picked this
Clearly, no candidate is better
This only has one premise (the original argument had two), so it really doesn't even get off the ground.
1% picked this
If Powell lacked superior negotiating
Why this is right
This provides a conditional premise, P lacked great ? wouldn't have been negotiating skills appointed arbitrator So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: P was appointed arbitrator. It does. So now the conclusion should be saying the opposite of the trigger: P does have superior negotiating skills. It does.
Skill tested: Parallel · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
64% picked this
Since Varga was away on
This provides a conditional premise, V is available ? R doesn't do negotiating So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: R does do negotiating Instead, that idea is found in the Conclusion. And the second premise says the opposite of the trigger: V was not available (he was on vacation)
9% picked this
If Wong is appointed arbitrator,
This provides a conditional premise, W appointed arbitrator ? decision reached soon So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: but the decision will not be reached soon Instead, that idea shows up as the conclusion, and the other premise just affirms the trigger.
6% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.