LSAT 153 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q26

LR Question 26 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Employee: Vernon’s behavior in last month’s incident was…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: To be consistent, the company must give Vernon his job back.

REASONING: Vernon behaved unprofessionally and was fired. Several higher-ranking employees behaved as unprofessionally as Vernon and were not fired.

ANALYSIS: You have to be sensitive to the words that are used in LSAT questions. In this case, the word “must” used in the conclusion is very powerful. It means that there is only one way for the company to be consistent and that is to give Vernon his job back. But this isn’t necessarily true. For example, the company could fired the other unprofessional employees. This is another way of being consistent. The mistake is hard to find unless you recognize the specific wording in the question and its implications.

___________

1. This doesn’t happen.
    
   Example of Flaw: The casino says they accept chips. But they did not accept my Dorito chips. So the casino is lying.
2. This is tricky because it wants to bait you into thinking that the company is trying to justify their decision to fire Vernon. This isn’t what is being argued. The employee doesn’t think that the company is trying to or needs to justify anything. What he says is that the company is consistent if they give Vernon his job back. This is different from attempting to justify their decision to fire Vernon.
    
   Example of Flaw: Thievery justifies being sent to prison. Therefore, people only go to prison for thievery.
3. This does not happen.
    
   Example of Flaw: X is true. Therefore, X is not false.
4. Another tricky answer. Lets reword this answer in terms of this actual case.
    
   Treating behavior that sometimes results in firing as behavior that always results in firing.
    
   I replaced the consequence the firing of Vernon and the not firing of the other employees. Now lets look at this answer more closely. Does the employee think that behavior that sometimes results in firing always results in firing? Well clearly not because we know that high-ranking employees were not, in fact, fired. Be very careful not to make the mistake of thinking that this answer is talking about whether they “should have been” fired. This is not what the answer is saying.
    
   Example of Flaw: Since flipping a coin can land on heads, it will always land on heads
5. CORRECT. See analysis. The employee is ignoring the possibility of another solution that would support the company behaving consistently and claims that one response is necessary.

Recap: The question begins with “Employee: Vernon’s behavior in last month’s incident was”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.