LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 140 › Logical Reasoning › Question 17

LSAT 140 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LSAT Preptest 140 explanations

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: We can be sure that at least some halogen lamps are…

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: At least some halogen lamps are well crafted.

REASONING: Anything on display at Furniture Labyrinth is well crafted. Some halogen lamps are on display at Furniture labyrinth.

  • Labyrinth display ➞ Well Crafted
  • Labyrinth display SOME halogen lamps

ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. It gives one conditional statement, and then a “some” statement which connects with the sufficient condition of the conditional.

Anytime a “some” statement connects with a sufficient condition, you can make a new some statement. Here’s an example:

Cat ➞ Tail
Cat SOME Brown

Conclusion: Brown SOME Tail (i.e. some brown things have tails)

___________

  1. This answer has a chance of storms. In the stimulus we knew that lamps were displayed.
  2. CORRECT. This is a good argument. It matches the structure of the stimulus exactly. Written by Melissa ➞ Disturbing
    Written by Melissa SOME sonnets
    Conclusion: Sonnets SOME Disturbing.
  3. This is a bad argument. Gianna can get her car worked on, but that doesn’t mean that she will. Also, car shops are capable of good work, but that doesn’t mean Gianna will inevitably receive good work.
  4. Maybe the lakes teem with healthy trout, but all the minnows are unhealthy. To be correct, this answer would have had to say that all fish in the nearby lakes are healthy.
  5. This is a good argument, but it doesn’t match the structure. The stimulus concluded that at least some lamps were well crafted. This answer concludes that all the cornmeal is healthful.
Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 140
Next Question

More Resources for Parallel Reasoning Questions

  • Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
  • LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
  • Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Parallel Reasoning questions.
  • Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers parallel reasoning questions.
Quick Jump PT Section Que

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Comments

  1. lsat says

    June 2, 2016 at 2:06 am

    Hi!
    Why did you not include “because lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at Labyrinth” in your premises?

    Reply
    • lsat says

      June 2, 2016 at 2:07 am

      I diagrammed this sentence as halogen lamps from most major manufacturers ->display at Labyrinth.

      Thank you!!

      Reply
      • Lucas (LSAT Hacks) says Tutor

        December 15, 2016 at 6:19 pm

        The “most” in “most major manufacturers isn’t what’s relevant to this argument.

        The conclusion in the stimulus is that at least some halogen lamps are well-crafted. So, what’s important is that all the items on display are well-crafted, and some of the things that are on display are halogen lamps.

        Sometimes the LSAT will trip you up by using words like “some” and “most” outside the relevant conditional reasoning in that particular stimulus. You can avoid that trap by (1) clearly determining the conclusion (2) figuring out which facts in the stimulus are actually important for the the author’s reasoning to get to that conclusion.

        Reply
  2. Matt says

    September 25, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Wow, I really screwed up on this question.

    From what I see about D, I diagrammed it as follows:
    Minnows some lakes nearby
    lakes nearby – – > healthy fish
    (I connected the chain to say: Minnows SOME lakes nearby – – – > healthy fish
    ————————–
    Minnows some healthy

    Why is it that we can’t conclude that some minnows are healthy? Unless I’m not seeing something here, the argument chain allows you to conclude some minnows are healthy fish and that some healthy fish are minnows.

    Reply
    • Graeme Blake says Founder

      October 6, 2015 at 4:01 pm

      Because the terms refer to different things. The answer didn’t say every fish in nearby lakes was a healthy fish. It just said the lakes have many healthy fish. (Are teeming with = have many)

      Be careful with diagrams. If you draw them wrong, they’ll lead to wrong conclusions.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms