LSAT 106 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Dalton can’t be a member of the Sutherlin law firm.

REASONING: Dalton is a divorce lawyer. The Sutherlin law firm is really good at criminal law.

ANALYSIS: This argument is very silly. People and companies can do more than one thing. Sutherlin might be mainly a criminal defense firm but also handle divorce cases.

___________

1. There’s no contradiction in the argument. The conclusion could be right. It just doesn’t have to be.
2. Huh? The conclusion didn’t say that Dalton couldn’t practice law. It just said he didn’t practice law with Sutherlin.
3. CORRECT. Sutherlin is mainly specialized in criminal defense, but they could do other things, such as divorce.
4. An example of this would be: “John is a criminal defense attorney at Sutherlin. Sutherlin tends to be successful at criminal defense. So John must be successful.”
5. The stimulus didn’t take any selection of Sutherlin attorneys. It just made a generalization about the firm (it mostly does criminal defense.)

Recap: The question begins with “The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.