LSAT 101 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: K, a research scientist, was accused of having falsified laboratory…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: K didn’t falsify.

REASONING: K’s recent work isn’t falsified.

ANALYSIS: This is a dumb argument. Just because someone isn’t lying now doesn’t mean they always told the truth in the past. It might only have been K’s early experiments which had false data.

The error is: assuming that the present is an accurate indicator of the past.

Or

Assuming that part of a sample is representative of the whole.

Note also that the most suspicious part of K’s experiments were the ones that weren’t examined.

___________

1. CORRECT. Just because L is sometimes honest doesn’t mean that L was always honest in the past. Maybe L just destroyed the incriminating records and decided to stop embezzling.
2. This is completely different. The stimulus said “don’t investigate”. This answer choice says we should investigate.
3. This is a half-decent argument, and it doesn’t repeat the flaw from the stimulus. It seems likely N didn’t plagiarize, though it’s still possible N had access to the drafts of other scholars work.
4. This doesn’t repeat the flaw. It’s evidence that O is guilty, while the stimulus mistakenly said K was not guilty.
5. This is a decent argument. It’s very rare that absolutely everyone thinks a politician’s acts were wrong.

Recap: The question begins with “K, a research scientist, was accused of having falsified laboratory”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flawed Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.