Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 3 · Question 15

Question prompt

There are circumstances in Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Flawed Parallel Reasoning Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    There are many business Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. This argument jumps from business events to social events, so it doesn't match the stimulus where the two statements were both about the same thing (generic "circumstances").
  2. B
    It is usually easy Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer doesn't assume that two things that can happen individually can also happen together—instead, it assumes that certain conditions that would complicate a situation don't usually happen.
  3. C
    It is healthful to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Flawed Parallel Reasoning

    Stimulus Summary:
    It's sometimes OK to make threats, and it's sometimes OK to ask for money, so it's sometimes OK to ask for money and make a threat.

    Answer Anticipation:
    This argument establishes that two things are both sometimes OK individually, and it concludes that they're sometimes OK when done together. This can be viewed as a quantifier flaw—it essentially combines two some statements and assumes that there is overlap in the situations discussed—or it can be viewed as ignoring the possibility that two things can be mutually exclusive. Either way, the correct answer needs to establish two things individually happen sometimes, and conclude that they sometimes happen together.

    Answer Explanation:
    This answer brings up two things that are fine to do on their own—take drug A; take drug B—and assumes that it's okay to do them together. However, it's possible that putting them together would create issues—maybe there's a bad interaction between the drugs. This argument commits the same flaw as the stimulus, assuming that two individual situations sometimes overlap, so it's the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    This flaw—assuming that two things can coincide and ignoring they might be mutually exclusive—is relatively rare on the LSAT, but it does show up on occasion, especially in Flawed Parallel Reasoning and Errors in Reasoning questions.
  4. D
    Heavy trucks are generally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish two things that both sometimes happen/are OK individually—it discusses operating a heavy truck sober, and operating a heavy truck while on certain prescription drugs, and only one is safe.
  5. E
    The mountain roads are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer features a reversal, not two situations that sometimes happen individually with an assumption that this means they sometimes happen together.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 10%
  2. B 2%
  3. C Credited 78%
  4. D 4%
  5. E 6%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion