LR Question 21 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: All too many weaklings are also cowards,…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There must be at least one person who is both a weakling and a fool.
REASONING: Many weaklings are cowards and all but a few (most) cowards are fools.
ANALYSIS: “Many” statements are basically just some statements. You can’t combine those with anything except a sufficient-necessary condition. It’s possible that people who are both cowards and weaklings are never fools.
A parallel argument would be: Many iguanas are pets and most pets have fur (dogs and cats.) Therefore at least some iguanas have fur.
___________
- This is a good argument though it could actually have said all weasels. Weasel ➞ carnivores ➞ non-herbivores
- This is a bad argument but only because it assumes that you have to be a saint or a moralist to live like saints or moralists.
- CORRECT. This incorrectly tries to combine “some” statements. Painters and dancers might have no overlap, even if both groups overlap with musicians.
- Virtuous ➞ Free ➞ Autonomous. This is a good argument.
- This is a good argument though they could have correctly concluded that “most voters are not opposed to stricter tariffs.”
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.
Check out LSATHacks All Access
It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I got really tripped up on this question because of the conclusion “There is at least one” qualifier in the stimulus vs “many are” qualifer in C. Should we not consider those to be qualitatively (if not quantitatively) different ?
In other words, can I consider arguments components phrased like “many A are B” or “some A are B” to be legitimately parallel to an argument component phrased like “there must be at least one A that is B”? These feel like they should be non-parallel/unequal to one another.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean exactly, but let me know if I answer your question or not. So for “at least one” that basically also means some/many/few. The funny thing about quantifiers is that a lot of them really mean the same thing. Some/many/few all mean somewhere between 1-49%. (0 = none; 50 = half; 51-99 = most; 100 = all).
So for your examples, “many A are B” and “some A are B” are parallel to each other, but “there must be at least one A that is B” does not follow from that since you can’t make conclusions from two “some” statements.