LSAT 33, Logical Reasoning I, Q15, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: People who are good at playing the…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Mary would make a good Drackedary player.

REASONING: Every Drackedary player is skilled with their hands. Mary is a good watchmaker. 

ANALYSIS: Being good with your hands is a necessary condition for being a Drackedary player. It isn’t a sufficient condition. 

That’s the first part of the structure. The second part is that the argument makes a warranted assumption: Mary is good with her hands. It’s pretty safe to assume that watchmakers are good with their hands. But that doesn’t make her a Drackedary player.

The argument needs a sufficient-necessary error and a warranted assumption. 

___________

1. This is actually a good argument. Long legs are a sufficient condition for being a good runner.
2. This is not a good argument. It’s possible to be a published novelist even if you don’t write for a living: most books barely earn any money. But this argument doesn’t make a sufficient-necessary error.
3. CORRECT. Reflexes are a necessary condition and not a sufficient condition. Second, it makes the warranted assumption that a table tennis player has good reflexes. 
4. This is a bad argument because it’s only true that Santa Claus is “often” played by an experienced actor. It doesn’t always have to be true. But there is no sufficient-necessary error. 
5. This is a bad argument because it switches from learning “eventually” to learning “in a day or two.” But it doesn’t make a sufficient-necessary error. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---