QUESTION TEXT: In a sample containing 1,000 peanuts from …
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There’s more Aspergillus infection in lot B.
REASONING: A random sample of 1000 peanuts from lots B found that 200 were infected, while only 50 peanuts out of a 1000 were infected in lot A.
ANALYSIS: This is a fairly good argument. The only possible weak points are whether the sample is large enough, and whether the sample was random.
To parallel the argument, you should find a case where there are two fairly large samples, and it’s not mentioned whether they were random.
___________
- This is a bad argument. It makes a part-to-whole error. The original argument didn’t make that error.
Example of argument: Every individual peanut here has few calories. So you can eat all 1,000 peanuts without eating many calories. - This is a bad argument. Likely = most on the LSAT. You can’t combine two most statements like this.
If we take likely to mean 51%, then it’s possible that a plant only has a 26% chance of death if we mistreat it. (51% odds of blight times 51% odds of death if blight.)
In any case, the original argument didn’t say “most”. - This answer isn’t a sample size based argument. The effect happened every time the fungicide was applied. Whereas in the original argument not every peanut was infected.
- CORRECT. This is a fairly good argument, assuming the sample sizes are large enough and that the samples were random. Same as the peanut argument.
- This argument uses conditional logic:
Livestock ➞ Registered ➞ Free range
The original argument did not use conditional logic.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply