Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT6 S3 Q14 Explanation

When the economy is in a recession

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsParallel

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

When the economy is in a recession, overall demand for goods and services is low. If overall demand for goods and services is low, bank interest rates are also low. Therefore, if bank economy is not in a recession.

What this question is testing

Parallel

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
14.

The reasoning in which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning in

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match13% picked this

    If the restaurant is full, the parking lot will be full, and if the parking lot is full, the restaurant is full, so if

    These two conditionals don't chain together. They are just reversals of each other (forming a bi-conditional relationship). But that's enough reason to ditch this one. Original: P1: A ? B P2: B ? C This answer: P1: A ? B P2: B ? A

  2. Correct80% picked this

    If the fish is ready, it is cooked all the way through, and if it is cooked through it will be white, so if

    Why this is right

    We've got our two conditional premises that chain together. fish ready ? cooked through A ? B cooked through ? white B ? C and then our conclusion gives us the first and last of the contrapositive chain not white ? not ready ~C ? ~A

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

  3. Bad Premise Match0% picked this

    If pterodactyls flew by flapping their wings, they must have been warm-blooded, so if they were cold-blooded, they must have flown only by

    There is only one premise, so we definitely won't get two conditional premises that chain together.

  4. Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

    If you want to put in pleats, you will have to double the amount of material for the skirt, and that means you will

    These two conditionals do chain together. P1: Put in pleats ? 2x material P2: 2x material ? none for top The correct conclusion would say, So if there is some left for the top, then you didn't put in pleats. Instead, the conclusion says "If put in pleats, then none left for top".

  5. Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

    If economic forecasters are right, there will be inflation, and if there is inflation, the governing party will lose the election, so if it

    These two conditionals do chain together. P1: EF's are right ? inflation P2: inflation ? GP loses The correct conclusion would say, So if the governing party does not lose the election, then the economic forecasters were not right. Instead, the conclusion says "If they do lose election, the forecasters were right."

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