Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. There aren't any quantified statements here, so we can immediately eliminate it.

Incorrect. The first premise here is about "the most common," which is different from a most quantifier.

Incorrect. There's only a single premise supporting this conclusion, so it can't be a match for a stimulus that chains two most premises together illegally.

Incorrect. The two premises here don't chain together, so they can't do so invalidly!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Auto mechanic-most-Extensive experience
Extensive experience-most-Understand electronic circuits
Therefore - Auto mechanic-most-Extensive experience

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus features a series of quantified statements. While two most statements can be combined to form a valid inference, they have to share the first term, whereas this stimulus attempts to chain them together. That's flawed logic, so the correct answer will have to do the same:
A-most-B
B-most-C
Therefore - A-most-C

Answer Explanation:
Since we eliminated everything else, we can probably get away with not diagramming this. There are two most premises, they chain together, and the conclusion is a most statement combining the two. That's the same structure (and flaw) as the stimulus, so this is our answer!

Key Takeaway:
Be careful in quantifier questions! The LSAT loves to throw quantifier words used in a non-quantifier manner at you to throw you off. For example, here, answer choice (B) talked about "the most common" birds, which isn't a statement about most birds. With hundreds of species, the most common birds might make up only a small fraction of the total bird population.