LSAT 149 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Fremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate for chief…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: An oil industry background isn’t necessary.

REASONING: An oil industry background isn’t sufficient.

ANALYSIS: Galindo makes a very straightforward conditional reasoning error. Fremont is arguing that oil industry background is necessary, and therefore Simpson is a bad candidate.

Galindo’s evidence about the last chief executive only shows such evidence is not sufficient. To guarantee something is a sufficient condition.

Fremont is saying: Success ➞ oil background

Galindo is saying: It is not true that “oil background ➞ success”

So Galindo is disputing a statement that Fremont did not say! Galindo got Fremont’s statement backwards.

___________

1. This argument didn’t presume bias! Galindo said nothing about Fremont personally.
   Example of argument: You may say this about Simpson, but really I think you’re just biased against people whose names start with the letter S.
2. This didn’t happen. Oil industry experience is certainly relevant on some level. Irrelevant experience would be if Galindo started talking about gardening or something.
   (Something can be relevant for success without being sufficient for success.)
3. CORRECT. See the analysis above. Galindo shows an oil background isn’t sufficient. He then mistakenly thinks this shows such a background also isn’t necessary.
4. This is a different argument. Galindo isn’t saying oil experience is irrelevant. They only said it isn’t sufficient. Big difference!
   Reading skills aren’t sufficient to get a 180 on the LSAT, but no one would argue on that basis that they’re irrelevant. This answer accusses Galindo of making that sort of flaw, but Galindo wasn’t that dumb.
   Example of argument: An oil CEO can fail with industry experience. So, industry experience is irrelevant.
5. This is a different argument. Galindo wasn’t arguing that every CEO with oil experience will fail.
   Example of argument: This one CEO with industry experience failed. So every CEO with experience will fail, and we should only hire inexperienced college graduates to be CEO.

Recap: The question begins with “Fremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate for chief”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.