LSAT 108 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q22

LR Question 22 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: One can be at home and be in the backyard …

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: You can be in your own house without being at home.

REASONING:

• You can be at home without being in your house (e.g. in the backyard)
• You can be in your own house without being at home (e.g. you own it but rent it out)

ANALYSIS: The conclusion is: You can be in your own house without being at home.

The only thing that proves that is the second example (owning a rented house). You’re in your own house (you own it), but you’re not at home (you don’t live there, it’s not your home).

The first sentence and example (backyard) is talking about the reverse relationship: You can be at home without being in your house.

It doesn’t help establish the conclusion at all. If you deleted it, the argument would still work exactly the same way.

The question asks about the relationship between the first sentence and the conclusion. It’s irrelevant to the conclusion. The conclusion could still be true whether that first claim is true or false.

___________

1. The conclusion is fully supported by the rented-house example. You could delete the first sentence entirely and still reach the same conclusion.
2. The author never argues against the first claim. In fact, the author presents it as true.
3. CORRECT. Whether you can be at home without being in your house has no effect on whether you can be in your own house without being at home. The two ideas are logically independent.
4. The author isn’t saying “at home” has multiple meanings or is confusing. The backyard example is simply an example, not a discussion of ambiguity.
5. Both statements can easily be true at the same time. One talks about being at home without being in your house, and the other talks about being in your house without being at home.