PrepTest 107

[lcid:3527] Prep Test 107 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

All too many weaklings 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.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Flawed Parallel Reasoning Questions / Illustration Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Weakling --some -- Coward
Coward --some-- Fool
Therefore - Weakling --some-- Fool

Answer Anticipation

A Flawed Parallel Reasoning question with quantifiers? The flaw is almost certainly an invalid inference drawn from combining quantified statements, so we should diagram it out, confirm that’s the case, and find an answer that does the same.
Let’s go statement by statement, because these quantifiers are tough!
The opening line says “All too many” weaklings are cowards. That’s not a guarantee that they all are, but does it guarantee most? No, it fails to do that! Think about the statements, “All too many people die from smoking.” That’s true, but most people don’t die from smoking. So this is a some statement.
The next line says “few” cowards fail to be fools. “Few” is an interesting word on the LSAT, and definitely read our takeaway. Few is a limiting word, telling us that some are, and some aren’t. So here, to get the statement to line up with the initial clause, we diagrammed it as Coward --some-- Fool. Since few cowards fail to be fools, that means that at least some are.
From that, the argument concludes that “at least one” - i.e., some - weaklings are fools. That’s an invalid inference since we can’t combine two some statements, so let’s find an answer that has the same pattern:
A --some-- B
B --some-- C
Therefore - A --some-- C
And remember that some statements are reversible, so we need to check for that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    All weasels are carnivores Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The statements here are conditionals, not quantified statements, so we can eliminate this answer.
  2. B
    Few moralists have the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The two premises here don’t share a term, so we can eliminate this answer.
  3. C
    Some painters are dancers, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    Painter --some-- Musician

    Musician --some-- Dancer

    Therefore - Painter --some-- Dancer

    This argument has two some premises that share a term, and the conclusion is an invalid inference that combines them into a some statement. It follows the same flawed pattern of reasoning as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.
  4. D
    If an act is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    These statements are conditionals, so we can rule this answer out.
  5. E
    A majority of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The opening line here is a most statement, and it’s followed by a conditional - two reasons to rule this answer out!

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion