Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S3 · Q10 Anyone who fails to answer a patient's

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

Anyone who fails to answer a patient’s questions cannot be a competent physician.

Conclusion (That is why)

I'm confident my physician is competent.

Evidence

Anyone who fails to answer a patient's questions cannot be competent.

My physician answers all my questions.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Parallel Flaw (or Flaw) and see conditional logic, we want to immediately suspect the #1 recurring flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which there is a conditional premise that the author applies in some illegal backwards or negated fashion.

We have a conditional here, signified by the universal Anyone.

If, Fail to answer patient's questions Then, Incompetent physician

An illegal reversal would sound like this,

An illegal negation sounds like what we got in this argument,

Both of those are double-negatives, so if we cleaned it up it would sound like

Goal

Let's look for an answer that similarly argues by way of an illegal negation.

PREM 1: If X, then Y. PREM 2: Thing A is not X. CONC: Thing A is not Y.

10.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. Anyone who grows up in

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The weaker strength of this conclusion, "She might have grown up in a large family" makes it a non-starter. As it turns out were we to look closer, the argument is making more of a Reversal than a Negation.

    12% picked this

  2. Anyone who is not in

    Valid Logic

    This supplies a conditional, not in favor → ill informed Then it tells us "J is not in favor, she opposes it", which allows them to validly conclude "J is ill informed".

    16% picked this

  3. No one who likes music

    Wrong Flaw: Self-Contradiction

    This answer weirdly just contradicts itself. The original argument made an illegal leap with conditional logic, but it didn't contradict itself. ORIGINAL: If X, then Y. C is not X, so C is not Y. THIS ANSWER: If X, then Y. C is X but not Y.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    Anyone who works two or

    Why this is right

    This performs an illegal negation: If X, then Y Work 2 jobs → unable to find balance Thing A is not X. Maggie does not work 2 jobs. Therefore, Thing A is not Y. Maggie is able to find balance.

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

    66% picked this

  5. No one who is hot-tempered

    Wrong Flaw: Not Fully Triggered

    The flaw here is that there are two conditions needed to trigger this rule, and the argument only supplies one of those two conditions. There's no negation or reversal happening though. ORIGINAL If X, then Y. J is not X. Thus, J is not Y. THIS ANSWER If X and Y, then not Z. J is Y. Thus, J is not Z.

    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