LSAT 23 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Kadshim wasn’t a city.

REASONING: The land around Kadshim couldn’t have supported specialized farms. Specialized farms need cities.

ANALYSIS: This argument confuses sufficient and necessary. Specialized farms need cities. But cities don’t need specialized farms. Kadshim could have been a city even if there were only mixed farms.

The premise is: SF ➞ C

The incorrect assumption is: C ➞ SF

___________

1. The argument doesn’t talk about an entire class of cities. It only talks about one city, Kadshim. That’s the only sample given; there’s no sample of a specialized farm given.
2. CORRECT. This is complicated, but true. Cities are necessary for specialized farms. The argument assumes that because specialized farms didn’t exist, then a city didn’t exist. That gets things backwards.
3. There’s no double interpretation. Every term always means the same thing.
4. This describes a causation-correlation error. But the argument never mentioned two things always happening together. Specialized farms always need cities, but the argument failed to prove that cities need specialized farms.
5. This describes circular reasoning. That’s where the reasoning is the same as the conclusion. That didn’t happen in this argument.

Recap: The question begins with “Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.