Logical Reasoning

PT9 · S2 · Q1 Crimes in which handguns are used

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

Crimes in which handguns are used are more likely than other crimes to result in fatalities.

Conclusion (therefore)

There is no need to enact laws that address handgun crimes as distinct from other crimes.

Evidence

The majority of handgun crimes don't result in fatalities.

Evaluate

Just because most handgun crimes don't kill people doesn't mean we shouldn't have distinct laws about handguns.

Most people don't die from cigarette smoking, but a lot do! And so we have laws. Most people don't die from going over the speed limit on the highway. But a lot of people do! So we have laws about that.

Even worse for this argument is that the author's second claim seems to undermine her conclusion, since she tells us that crimes with handguns are more likely to be fatal than crimes without!

Goal

At a minimum, the correct answer should reflect the essence of the orig flaw,

If the answer is going to reflect the whole structure, it might also contain that counterpoint:

Counterpoint: Things with X are worse than those same things w/o X. Premise: Most things with X don't lead to something terrible. Conclusion: We don't need to handle X in some special way.

1.

The pattern of flawed reasoning displayed in the argument above most closely resembles that in which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    Overweight people are at higher

    Why this is right

    This nails the whole structure. Counterpoint: Things with X are worse than those same things w/o X. Ppl with obesity are worse off than ppl w/o obesity. Premise: Most things with X don't lead to something terrible. Most obese people don't get heart disease. Conclusion: We don't need to do handle X in some special way. We don't need physicians to handle heart disease in a special way with obese patients.

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

    94% picked this

  2. Many people swim daily in

    Bad Validity Match

    It doesn't seem like we can match any of our three desired ingredients with the ingredients of this argument. Counterpoint: Things with X are worse off than those same things w/o X. Many ppl swim daily in order to stay fit. (this sounds like they're better off) Premise: Most things with X don't lead to something terrible. Ppl who swim daily get more ear infections (this sounds like it DOES lead somewhere bad). Conclusion: We don't need to do handle X in some special way. People should think about daily swimming in a special way (if they want to stay in good health, they shouldn't do it)

    2% picked this

  3. Most physicians recommend a balanced

    Bad Validity Match

    The evidence is a much weaker match than (A), and the conclusion seems more valid. It's pretty well justified by the premise, because it's making a very limited claim that "SOME people can be ok on nontraditional regimens". Counterpoint: Things with X are worse off than those same things w/o X. Most docs recommend a balanced diet. (This is a terrible match) Premise: Most things with X don't lead to something terrible. Many people who do nontraditional diets, such as fasting, don't do serious harm. (That's a pretty good match: it doesn't lead somewhere terrible) Conclusion: We don't need to do handle X in some special way. Some people can be okay doing nontraditional diets. (this doesn't really match at all; if anything, it might feel like some people can have special permission to have a weird diet, even if most people should probably be on a traditional one).

    4% picked this

  4. Foods rich in cholesterol and

    Bad Validity Match

    The counterpoint seems like a decent match, but the other two don't really work. Counterpoint: Things with X are worse off than those same things w/o X. Foods with cholesterol / fat pose a serious threat. Premise: Most things with X don't lead to something terrible. Many people don't want to give up those foods. (that's a bad match; this is about desire, not about consequences) Conclusion: We don't need to do handle X in some special way. People who want to keep eating rich foods DO need to handle exercise in a special way (this feels more like the opposite of the type of conclusion we want).

    0% picked this

  5. Many serious health problems are

    Bad Validity Match

    Seeing that the conclusion is a recommendation that something special SHOULD be done would be enough to bail on this one. Counterpoint: Things with X are worse off than those same things w/o X. Many dietary disorders lead to serious health problems. (bad match, doesn't provide some quality that makes things worse) Premise: Most things with X don't lead to something terrible. Many of these disorders are caused by psychological factors. (This doesn't sound anything like "doesn't lead to something bad". And it creates a causal chain with the first claim, which the orig argument did not do.) Conclusion: We don't need to do handle X in some special way. People with health problems should get a psych eval.

    0% 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