Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. There are two issues here. First, this analogy jumps between some people (individuals) and some species of lion. The stimulus is about higher apes and some animal (singular) with wings. The individual/species elements of the analogy are mixed up here. Additionally, discovering a species isn't the same as claiming something exists.

Incorrect. This argument presents an incomplete analogy—we'd need to have another "piece" to the alien portion of it to match up. Additionally, the analogous situation is about all early explorers, not just some of them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Arguing higher apes can talk but haven't is like arguing some animals have wings but don't fly, given how valuable those skills are.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus here uses a common method of reasoning—it relies on an analogy. To show that one claim is "ill-considered," it draws an analogy between one situation and another that is implied to be similarly absurd.

That analogy relates the claim that higher apes are capable of talking but just haven't yet, to a claim that some animals can fly (have wings) but never tried to fly.

Let's find an answer that relies on an analogy that highlights what the author views to be absurd ideas!

Answer Explanation:
This answer uses an analogy that matches up with the stimulus. It brings up a supposed capability of species that has never been used, and then it jumps to talking about an equally ridiculous situation dealing with some insect (singular) who has legs but doesn't walk. Since the elements in the analogy match up with the ones in the stimulus, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Wow, this was a tough question! It really did come down to the small details in the analogy. But we do know that a shift between individuals and groups is important on the LSAT, and that ended up being what led us to eliminating a lot of the answers, so it reinforces that we should always be paying attention to those elements!

Incorrect. This answer reverses the elements of the analogy, starting with individuals ("some people") and then moving on to a larger group ("a society").

Incorrect. The stimulus is about higher apes, none of whom have chosen to talk, whereas this answer is about how "not all" people with cars drive. That shift is enough to invalidate this answer.