LSAT 159 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q10

LR Question 10 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: For years, Glenville had the highest apartment rents in the …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Renting an apartment in Glenville is cheaper now than it was before.

REASONING: Before, Glenville had the highest rents in its region. Now, it ranks third.

ANALYSIS: This is a classic flaw. The argument uses relative reasoning to draw an absolute claim.

If other cities’ rent increased faster, that could still have pushed Glenville down the list, even though Glenville’s rents stayed the same or even rose.

A parallel argument will make the same mistake of concluding an absolute change from a relative change in ranking.

___________

1. This argument treats lower vet bills as proof of better health, but cost and health aren’t the same thing. A pet might have lower bills because it had cheaper treatments or didn’t visit the vet as often, even if it was more sick. It’s a flawed comparison, but it’s not the same kind of mistake as confusing relative and absolute measures.
2. CORRECT. The kitten’s size relative to the puppy changed, but that doesn’t mean the kitten physically shrank. The puppy just grew. That’s exactly the same flaw as the stimulus: Glenville’s rents didn’t necessarily drop just because it’s now third instead of first. The surrounding cities probably just had bigger rent increases than Glenville.
3. We’re not concerned about the order of events, so this doesn’t matter.
4. This assumes a causal link between eating less and not becoming overweight, so it deals with cause and effect. That’s not the same thing as relative vs absolute change.
5. So if one animal becomes friendlier, the other must too. That’s an assumption about mutual behavior, but it’s not about rankings or comparisons.