LSAT 34, Logical Reasoning I, Q23, LSATHacks

LR Question 23 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: To be horrific, a monster must be threatening…

QUESTION TYPE: Must be True

FACTS: 

1. If a monster is horrific then it is threatening.
2. If a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening.
3. Even a non-dangerous (benign) monster that inspires revulsion is horrific (and therefore threatening)

ANALYSIS: We can combine terms to get the following:

Revulsion ➞ horrific ➞ threatening

Not threatening ➞ not horrific, nor physically dangerous, nor something that inspires revulsion.

Note: Most of the second sentence is fluff. On similar questions, learn to cut out the stuff at the start and only focus on the sufficient-necessary relationships (or terms like some, most, etc.)

___________

1. This gets it backwards. Horrific is always threatening but threatening doesn’t have to be horrific.
2. This is an incorrect negation. There are other ways to be horrific apart from inspiring revulsion. 
3. The only way we could conclude that a monster doesn’t inspire horror is if the monster wasn’t threatening. Otherwise we simply don’t know what might cause a monster to be horrific.
4. As with C, the only way we can be sure that a monster isn’t revolting is if it is also not horrific. We know nothing about a monster that is psychologically threatening. 
5. CORRECT. Any monster that inspires revulsion is also horrific. And any horrific monster is threatening. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.