Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q3 After purchasing a pot-bellied

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

After purchasing a pot-bellied pig at the pet store in Springfield, Amy was informed by a Springfield city official that she would not be allowed to keep the pig as a pet, since city codes classify pigs as livestock, and individuals may not keep livestock in Springfield.

Conclusion

Amy would not be allowed to keep the pig as a pet.

Evidence (since)

The city codes classify pigs as livestock.

Individuals may not keep livestock in Springfield.

Evaluate

This argument is built on a simple categorical exclusion: because pigs are classified as livestock and Springfield prohibits keeping livestock, Amy cannot keep her pig as a pet.

The argument assumes that Springfield’s regulations apply to Amy’s situation. In other words, for the city code to affect her, she must be subject to it.

Goal

We need an answer that links Amy’s situation to Springfield’s rules—specifically, that she is bound by Springfield’s code (i.e., she lives in Springfield), so the prohibition applies to her.

3.

The city official’s argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    Amy lives in Springfield.

    Why this is right

    This choice is necessary because if Amy does not live in Springfield (or is not otherwise subject to its local regulations), the rule prohibiting the keeping of livestock in Springfield would not automatically bar her from keeping the pig. The negation would weaken because it would make the evidence irrelevant to Amy's situation.

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

    85% picked this

  2. Pigs are not classified as

    Premise Support

    This feels like something implied by a premise or supporting a premise. We were told in the argument that city codes classify pigs as livestock. So does that imply they're not classified as pets? It would seem so, but maybe could you be classified as both? That seems like an implausible idea, though. We know that this pot-bellied pig was purchased at a pet store in Springfield. So it seems like the pet store classifies it as a pet! If we interpret this answer to mean "NOTHING in Springfield classifies pigs as pets", then it's definitely too strong and even contradicted by the pet store detail. If we interpret it to mean "Pigs are not classified by the city as pets", then it would seem to be a valid inference, but would still have nothing to do with the reasoning gap between the evidence and the Conclusion. We don't want to pick an answer because we think we can infer it from a premise. We're picking an answer that we think is involved in the author's move from evidence to conclusion.

    10% picked this

  3. Any animal not classified as

    Negation

    We are told a rule that "If classified as livestock, can't be kept as pet in Springfield" and this answer is just an illegal negation of that idea, "If not classified as livestock, can be kept as pet"

    4% picked this

  4. Dogs and cats are not

    Out of Scope: dogs and cats

    Whether dogs and cats are or aren't classified as livestock would never have any bearing on whether or not Amy can keep her pig as a pet. Like (B), this is trying to tempt us with something you might infer from the evidence, but it has nothing to do with the Conclusion about Amy and her pig.

    0% picked this

  5. It is legal for pet

    Trap

    Out of Scope (legality of selling it) Opposite (if anything) The argument is only concerned with the legality of keeping the pig as a pet, not the legality of purchasing it from a pet store. Plus, based on what he hear about Springfield's laws, it would be surprising if it IS legal to pigs in pet stores. If anything, we'd assume the Springfield pet store should not have been selling that pig.

    1% 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