LSAT 1 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate …

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Max is not guilty.

REASONING: If he was guilty, he wouldn’t have asked the police to investigate.

ANALYSIS: This is a classic structure. We’re looking for something that follows this pattern:

1. If A -> not B
2. B happened, so not A.

___________

1. CORRECT. This matches the structure exactly. If A (Lucille in the next room) -> not B (not see her). B happened (see her), so not A (L not in the next room).
2. This is a logically flawed argument. Just because Sam didn’t go to Alaska doesn’t mean he’s rich. We’re told that rich people don’t vacation in Alaska, but that doesn’t mean only rich people avoid Alaska. Maybe he’s not rich but just hates the cold.
3. This is also a flawed argument. It says: If A (Joe over 40) -> B (doesn’t want to ski). Then it assumes: B happened, so A must be true. But that’s just flipping the condition, which doesn’t follow logically. Joe could be younger and still not want to ski for any number of reasons.
4. This argument tries to take the contrapositive but gets it wrong. It says:
    
   If A -> B
   Not A -> not B
    
   That’s a logical flaw. To take the contrapositive, it would be “not B -> not A”.
5. This isn’t a logical flaw, but it’s not actually an argument or inference either. This is like saying “If it rains, the ground gets wet. It rains, so the ground gets wet.” That’s valid, but it doesn’t match the stimulus.