LSAT 21 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: If a mechanical aerator is installed in a fish pool…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Joe’s fish won’t do well.

REASONING: A mechanical aerator would let his fish do well. But Joe doesn’t have an aerator. Fish won’t do well unless their water is aerated.

ANALYSIS: There could be some other way of aerating water apart from using a mechanical aerator. A mechanical aerator is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition.

___________

1. CORRECT. Alum is a sufficient condition for replacing the water with brine, but it isn’t a necessary condition. There might be some other way of allowing water to be replaced with brine. So Paula might be able to let her pickles stay crisp after all.
2. This is a good argument. A setting agent is a necessary condition.
3. This isn’t a great argument. There could be something apart from beets that releases ethylene (such as the place the potatoes are stored.) But there’s no missing sufficient condition mistaken for a necessary condition.
4. This is a good argument. The first sentence tells us that any carrots that are covered with mulch in the fall can be left in the ground till spring.
5. This is a good argument. Maria’s tomatoes might sprout, since they weren’t stored in the dark.

Recap: The question begins with “If a mechanical aerator is installed in a fish pool”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flawed Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.