LSAT 23 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q3

LR Question 3 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: After purchasing a pot-bellied pig at the pet store in…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Amy can’t keep the pig as a pet.

REASONING: Pigs are livestock, and people who live in Springfield can’t keep livestock.

ANALYSIS: No one said Amy lives in Springfield. She might be able to keep pigs as pets in her town.

___________

1. CORRECT. If Amy doesn’t live in Springfield, then Springfield law won’t apply to her. Maybe she can keep the pig as a pet in another town.
2. Even if pigs are classified as pets, they still couldn’t be kept by individuals as pets. Pigs are also classified as livestock, and individuals can’t keep livestock.
3. This is hardly necessary. An elephant likely isn’t classified as livestock, but the argument doesn’t depend on whether an elephant can be kept as a pet.
4. Who cares about dogs and cats? We’re talking about pigs.
5. So? Whether or not it’s legal to sell pigs, it’s illegal for individuals to keep pigs as pets in Springfield.

Recap: The question begins with “After purchasing a pot-bellied pig at the pet store in”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Necessary questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.