LSAT 151 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A recent poll of a large number of households found that 47 percent …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: People with university degrees are more likely to live with a cat than a dog.

REASONING: 47% of households with a cat had someone with a university degree, while 38% of households with a dog had someone with a university degree.

ANALYSIS: Imagine 1,000 households have a cat. According to the stimulus, 470 of those households would have someone with a university degree.

Now imagine 10,000 households have a dog. According to the stimulus, 3,800 of those households would have someone with a university degree.

So if you have a university degree, you’re more likely to live with a dog (3,800) than a cat (470).

It’s a flaw of confusing percentages with absolute numbers. If there are way more households with dogs, then the conclusion doesn’t make sense.

___________

1. Households with both pets would complicate the comparison, but presumably the stimulus is only about households that have one type.
2. CORRECT. The argument assumes there aren’t far more dog households than cat households. If there are, degree-holders could still be more likely to live with dogs.
3. Households without degree-holders are already indirectly accounted for by the given percentages. Besides, we’re concerned with people who have degrees, so those who don’t do not matter.
4. The argument isn’t about who chooses the pet. It’s just about who lives with which pet.
5. This isn’t a causation argument. The conclusion is about likelihood, not whether degrees cause cat ownership.