Logical Reasoning

PT4 · S1 · Q22 In an experiment, two-year-old boys

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

In an experiment, two-year-old boys and their fathers made pie dough together using rolling pins and other utensils.

Setup

In an experiment, two-year-old boys made pie dough with their fathers using rolling pins. Each father-son pair had a distinctively different rolling pin. Each father repeatedly said "rolling pin" while the son used it.

Result

When asked to identify all rolling pins among kitchen utensils (which included several rolling pins), each child picked only the one he had used.

Evaluate

Each child applied the term "rolling pin" only to his own specific rolling pin and not to the other rolling pins. Since each child had a different rolling pin, no two children associated the term with the same object.

Goal

The correct answer should capture this: the children each used "rolling pin" to refer to a different specific object — meaning no two children meant the same thing by the term.

22.

Which one of the following inferences is most supported by the information above?

  1. The children did not grasp

    Out of Scope

    The experiment is about whether the children correctly identified rolling pins, not about whether they understood what rolling pins do. A child could fully grasp the function of a rolling pin and still attach the name only to the specific one he used. The data does not speak to function-understanding.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    No two children understood the

    Why this is right

    This follows directly. Each child identified only his own rolling pin as a "rolling pin," and each child had a distinctively different rolling pin. So no two children applied the term to the same object — child 1 meant pin A, child 2 meant pin B, and so on. The term "rolling pin" had a different referent in each child's mind.

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

    68% picked this

  3. The children understood that all

    Contradicted

    If the children understood that all rolling pins share a general shape, they would have identified the other rolling pins too. They did not — each picked only his own. So the data actually contradicts the idea that they grasped the common shape.

    1% picked this

  4. Each child was able to

    Too Strong

    "Only the utensils that he had used" overstates. The experiment only tested rolling pins — we do not know whether each child could identify other utensils he had used (other rolling-pin-like tools? other kitchen items?). The stimulus does not give us data on the universe of utensils, only on rolling pins.

    24% picked this

  5. The children were not able

    Too Strong

    This is about visual discrimination — whether the children could distinguish their rolling pin from others. The experiment shows the children attached the name only to their own pin, not that they could not visually tell rolling pins apart. They might well distinguish them; they just did not call the others by that name.

    4% 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