LSAT 102 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q20

LR Question 20 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: In some ill-considered popularizations of interesting current…

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: It’s silly to think that some animals could speak, but don’t.

REASONING: It’s like saying that some animals could fly, but don’t. Speaking and flight are both really useful.

ANALYSIS: The author is implying that it’s unlikely an ape could talk, but not use that power. It’s more likely that an ape can’t talk.

Likewise, a bird that looks like it could fly but doesn’t (e.g. ostrich, penguin), probably can’t fly. Flying is very useful.

___________

1. It’s hard to assess this argument. Maybe there are some humans who don’t need sleep, or maybe there are some lions who can survive without meat.
2. The alien argument would only match the explorer argument if it had had argued that aliens visited but never founded colonies.
3. CORRECT. Both telekinetics and walking offer huge advantages. It would be strange if people and insects didn’t use these powers.
4. This isn’t quite the same. Tobacco and alcohol can be fun, sure…but they offer lots of downsides. Flight and speaking don’t have any obvious downsides.
5. I’m really not sure what to say to this. First, owning a car isn’t a physical characteristic. And some people do own cars without driving them.
    
   Gasoline can have other uses apart from driving, so we might have invented it first.

Recap: The question begins with “In some ill-considered popularizations of interesting current”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.