Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 1 · Question 21

Incorrect. The argument establishes a relationship between factual statements and moral judgments, so it doesn't assume a connection.

Incorrect. The argument speaks to Meyers' action, not to what he would have done in another scenario, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Take something you believe is someone else's → Stealing → Wrong
Meyers: not Believe someone else's
Conclusion: Meyers action wasn't wrong

Answer Anticipation:
Conditional language in an Errors in Reasoning question frequently leads to an illegal reversal or negation. Here, the Lawyer's conditional establishes what guarantees an action is wrong, but she then concludes that not doing that thing means the action isn't wrong. That's an illegal negation, so let's find an answer describing that flaw.

Answer Explanation:
While this answer choice is how illegal reversals are usually phrased, it applies here. The argument establishes that believing something belongs to someone else and taking it anyway, by itself, guarantees that an action is wrong. Then, it treats it as necessary for something to be wrong since it treats the absence of doing that as establishing that the action wasn't wrong. If something is necessary for a given outcome, then not having it precludes that outcome.

Key Takeaway:
This answer shows the connection between illegal reversal and negations—they're the contrapositive of each other. To see this, think about the connection:
Original: A → B
Negation: not A → not B
Reversal: B → A

Since the two are related, the LSAT will sometimes blur the edges around them in the answers, so be ready for it if you don't see an answer that matches the exact conditional logic flaw you anticipated.

Incorrect. If the compost was Meyers' property, then it wasn't anyone else's property, which is what the stimulus states, so there's no failure to consider this possibility.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't conclude or rely on the compost being someone else's property—it only relies on Meyers not having a reason to believe it was.