QUESTION TYPE: Evaluate The Argument
CONCLUSION: If an inspector finds a cocker spaniel near Flynn Heights, then the dog probably belongs to someone in Flynn Heights.
REASONING: Most cocker spaniels are registered to addresses in Flynn Heights.
ANALYSIS: Many LSAT questions present two things that seem the same, but actually aren’t.
Here, the two things are ‘dogs registered in Flynn Heights’ and ‘dogs that live in Flynn Heights’.
Maybe not all dogs are registered. The correct answer hints that residents of Flynn heights are more likely to get a license for their dogs.
If that’s true, then maybe most dogs live outside of Flynn Heights, and registrations are misleading. There could be millions of unregistered cocker spaniels in other neighborhoods.
- Who cares about other dogs? This is totally irrelevant. The argument would be exactly the same even if there were no other dogs in the city apart from cocker spaniels.
- Same as A.
- This doesn’t tell us anything about cocker spaniels. Also, it doesn’t really matter where officers find cocker spaniels. It could be they don’t spend much time in Flynn Heights and therefore don’t find many dogs there.
- This could explain why more cocker spaniels are registered, but it doesn’t help us evaluate the argument.
- CORRECT. If residents are more likely to license their dogs, then maybe there aren’t more cocker spaniels living in Flynn Heights. You can assume that license means the same thing as registration. Common sense applies to the LSAT.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly