LSAT 7 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q20

LR Question 20 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: According to sources who can be expected to know, Dr. Maria Esposito …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Dr. Esposito will be the only candidate in the mayoral election.

REASONING:

• Sources say she will run.
• If she runs, Krasman certainly won’t.

ANALYSIS: The argument assumes that Krasman is the only possible other candidate, but offers no support to establish that.

It treats Esposito runs -> Krasman doesn’t as enough to conclude that no one else will run, even though other people could be candidates too.

So we’re looking for a parallel that infers one person doing something rules out another person, then concludes that only that one person/outcome remains while ignoring other possible options.

___________

1. This is a causal argument about economic viability. It doesn’t assume a false dichotomy or ignore alternatives.
2. CORRECT. This mirrors the flawed logic: (1) a reporter says they’ll play Saturday, (2) the conditional “if Saturday -> not Friday”, (3) concludes it must be Saturday while ignoring other possibilities. What about other days, just like other possible candidates in the stimulus? It’s a false dichotomy.
3. This is about probabilities and involves a subjective judgment and draws a likely conclusion based on this. It never assumes exclusivity or ignores alternatives.
4. This is tempting, but it actually corrects the flaw of the stimulus. It explicitly states that only two people could have been involved in the robbery. So the reasoning is valid, not flawed.
5. This is just a straightforward comparison. It doesn’t involve any conditional exclusion, nor does it assume no other options exist.