LSAT 103 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Three-year-old Sara and her playmate Michael are both…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Sara definitely doesn’t have a streptococcal infection.

REASONING: Michael definitely doesn’t have a streptococcal infection, even though he has some symptoms of such an infection. He plays with Sara every afternoon. They have similar symptoms.

ANALYSIS: The argument provides good evidence that Sara is unlikely to have a streptococcal infection. But the conclusion claims she definitely doesn’t have one. It’s too strong a statement.

___________

1. The argument isn’t circular. It provides evidence that Michael must not have an infection to support the claim that Sara hasn’t got one.
2. The argument hasn’t even mentioned causes and effects.
3. The argument doesn’t have to distinguish between different types of streptococcal infections, since it claims that neither child has any type of streptococcal infection.
4. CORRECT. We have pretty good circumstantial evidence that Sara doesn’t have a streptococcal infection. She probably has the same disease as her frequent playmate, since he has the same symptoms. But coincidences happen, and Sara might have a different disease.
5. Respective groups? We’re just talking about a couple of kids. There are no groups.

Recap: The question begins with “Three-year-old Sara and her playmate Michael are both”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.