LSAT 17 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: No projects that involve historical restorations were granted…

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: At least some of Stein and Sapin’s projects were not granted permits this month.

REASONING: Some of Stein and Sapin’s projects are historical restorations. No historical restorations were given permits this month.

ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. Some things in one group (Stein’s projects) are also part of another group (projects that did not receive permits.)

___________

1. This is a good argument but it doesn’t conclude that some things in one group are also part of another group.
2. This is a bad argument. A positive trend could actually be discouraging. We could have been expecting an even larger positive trend and thus be discouraged that the trend was lower than expectations.
3. This isn’t quite the same. The stimulus was certain that some of Stein’s projects had no permits. This argument just says it’s “likely” that some musicians will be paid late. D is a better answer.
4. CORRECT. Yes. Some things from one group (Hannah Barker’s films) are also part of another group (films that did not receive enthusiastic reviews) because no films received enthusiastic reviews this season.
5. This is a bad argument. We can’t make a conclusion by combining two “some” statements. It may be that only one park is old and only one is beautiful. They might not be the same park.

Recap: The question begins with “No projects that involve historical restorations were granted”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.