LSAT 151 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Munroe was elected in a landslide …

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: There’s been a big change in how voters feel.

REASONING:

• Munroe was elected.
• He couldn’t have been elected without (1) a change in voters’ feelings, and (2) a well-run campaign.

ANALYSIS: The logic here is:

• Outcome happened
• The outcome could only happen if A and B were both true
• So, A must be true

That’s actually valid. If something requires both conditions, and we know the thing happened, then each required condition must have happened.

The structure in the answer choice should be the same (outcome that requires two conditions; outcome happened, so condition must be true).

___________

1. This rules out one explanation (customer satisfaction) for an outcome (closing cafe), and then concludes it must be due to an alternative cause (competition). That’s different from the stimulus.
2. CORRECT. Perfect match. Cafe closed; it could only have closed if competition and unsatisfied customers; so, competition existed. It’s the same logic as the stimulus.
3. There’s only one requirement here for closing (competition). It’s saying people are wrong for thinking customer satisfaction would be a reason for closing. Not the same as the stimulus.
4. Way weaker conclusion. It just says we can’t rule something out. The original makes a definite conclusion.
5. This flips things around. It talks about the absence of two conditions that would be required for the cafe to stay open. It doesn’t conclude about the presence of required conditions.