LR Question 17 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: We can be sure that at least…
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)
___________
- This answer has a chance of storms. In the stimulus we knew that lamps were displayed.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I created LSATHacks, and scored a 177 on the LSAT.
Check out LSATHacks All Access
It's your one stop shop for LSAT prep: 1000s more explanations, and courses for both intro and advanced students. Lifetime access to everything on LSATHacks and anything I add. Plus a consult with me to get you started on the right track.
---------
Socials and Updates: If you have any questions, you can can check out my TikTok videos or email me.
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Hi!
Why did you not include “because lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at Labyrinth” in your premises?
I diagrammed this sentence as halogen lamps from most major manufacturers ->display at Labyrinth.
Thank you!!
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.
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.
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.