LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#22736
Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

The first sentence of this stimulus provides the following conditional diagram:
Max guilty → (not) ask police to investigate
Contrapositive:
Ask police to investigate → Max not guilty
As we can see from the above, the conclusion drawn by the author reflects a valid contrapositive, so the correct answer choice should reflect the same.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, as it does indeed reflect a valid contrapositive. The statement and contrapositive can be diagrammed as follows:
Statement: Lucille in next room → I could not see her
Contrapositive: I can see her → Lucille not in next room
Since the conclusion provided by this statement reflects a valid contrapositive, this answer choice perfectly parallels the reasoning in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice provides neither a good parallel nor a valid conclusion. The flawed reasoning can be diagrammed as follows:
Statement: Sam were rich → (not) spend vacation in Alaska
Invalid conclusion: (not) spend vacation in Alaska → Sam rich
The above reasoning reflects a Mistaken Reversal, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Here we have another Mistaken Reversal, and another incorrect answer choice, which can be diagrammed as follows:
Statement: Joe over 40 → (not) want to learn to ski
MR Conclusion: (not) want to learn to ski → Joe over 40

Answer choice (D): This choice also reflects an invalid conclusion, so this answer choice is incorrect, but in this case we have a Mistaken Negation:
Statement: Mark good cook → (not) put cinnamon in chili
Mark not good cook → put cinnamon in chili
As we can see from the above diagram, both sides have been negated, but no reversed, so this is a classis Mistaken Negation.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice does reflect valid reasoning, but still fails to parallel the stimulus perfectly. Whereas correct answer choice (A) reflects a valid contrapositive, this answer choice merely reflects a valid restatement:
Statement: Sally sociable → (not) avoid friends
Conclusion: Sally sociable → (not) avoid friends
Because this answer choice does not parallel the stimulus as closely as answer choice (A), answer choice (E) is incorrect.
 icanshoot325
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: Apr 07, 2015
|
#18421
I'm having a little trouble understanding why the answer is A but not E?
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#18425
Hi icanshoot325,

Welcome to the Forum!

Answer choice (E) contains a mere restatement of the original argument; what you need is a valid contrapositive, which is provided in answer choice (A). [Admin note: We have moved this question to the thread explaining this question.] After consulting the full explanation, feel free to ask a question on the Forum if there is still anything left unclear.

Good luck!
 Melissa
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: Apr 06, 2020
|
#74833
Please indicate which part of question is sufficient indicator and which part is necessary indicator? Please explain why.
thanks.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#74854
Hi Melissa!

"If" is a sufficient indicator. So whenever you have "if," whatever is modified by "if" becomes your sufficient condition and the remainder would be the necessary condition.

In this case, "If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate." "If" modifies "Max were guilty" so that is our sufficient condition and the remainder--"he would not ask the police to investigate"--is our necessary condition.

Hence the diagram:

Max guilty :arrow: Ask police to investigate

The author then gives us additional information about Max--that he asked the police to investigate--and argues that this information is enough (or sufficient) to conclude that Max is not guilty.

To put it in a diagram:

Ask police to investigate :arrow: Max guilty

Here, asking police to investigate goes on our sufficient side because, again, the author assumes that that fact is sufficient to prove that Max is not guilty.

You can check out full lists of sufficient and necessary indicator terms in our Logical Reasoning Bible!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
User avatar
 Snomen
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Sep 30, 2021
|
#94626
I got this question right but I have a funny question about E. Can we say that E is a flawed argument on the basis that it is circular reasoning? :-D
Thank you in advance !
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#94690
Snomen,

Answer choice (E) is not circular reasoning - it's a fine argument using a single conditional. It's not using a contrapositive, so it doesn't match the stimulus.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.