QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Frank doesn’t embezzle.
REASONING: Wants to prosecute –> Charged
ANALYSIS: This argument gives a single conditional statement, then negates the necessary condition. We could have correctly concluded that the prosecutor doesn’t want to prosecute Frank. But we don’t know if Frank is an embezzler.
You could call it a concept shift. Prosecuting Frank for embezzlement doesn’t mean Frank embezzles, and not prosecuting doesn’t mean he is innocent.
- This is a different error. It’s a mistaken reversal:
Knew –> 10
Incorrect reversal: 10 –> knew
- This is a different error. It’s an incorrect negation
Lottery –> stay home
lottery–> stay home
- CORRECT. This argument correctly negates the necessary condition of a conditional statement. And then it repeats the concept shift error in the stimulus: we could conclude that Makoto does not believe the oven is on, but it’s very possible that the oven is actually on. Belief ≠ fact, just like lack of prosecution ≠ innocence.
Believe oven on –> Rush home
Still at work. Therefore oven actually off.
- This answer repeats the same concept shift error, moving from belief about getting a promotion, to actually getting a promotion. But, this argument makes an incorrect reversal. The stimulus correctly negated the necessary condition.
Believed promotion –> Come in early
Incorrect reversal: Come in early –> actually getting a promotion.
- This repeats the belief/fact concept shift. However, the stimulus and answer C both negated the necessary condition of the conditional statement. This answer presents a flawed version of the sufficient condition.
Believe going to be fired –>
come in to work
Flawed sufficient condition: Lucy is going to be fired.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly