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.”
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly