PrepTest 151

Incorrect. Cat and dog households overlapping wouldn't mess with the statistics, as there still could be an overall discrepancy. Just because chicken and dumplings coexist in one soup doesn't mean that there can't be more chicken soups than dumpling soups.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
47% of houses with a cat have at least one college grad; the same is true for 38% of households with dogs. Thus, college grads are more likely to live in a cat house than the dog house.

Answer Anticipation:
47% is bigger than 38%, right? Well, yes, but notice how the premises are phrased versus the conclusion. In the premises, it talks about the percent of households with dogs and cats, and how they overlap with college grads. In the conclusion, it's the reverse—houses with college grads, and how they overlap with cats and dogs. This reversal is the flaw.

As a parallel example, think about this argument: 35% of households in India have a television, whereas 50% of households in the US have televisions. Therefore, a TV is more likely to be in a US house than an Indian house. Which isn't true! 35% of India amounts to a higher number of households than 50% of the US because of the different population levels.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the discrepancy. If there are 5 times as many dog houses as cat houses, then a university degree-holder could be more likely to have a dog even though only 38% of dogs are in houses with a degree holder.

Key Takeaway:
Statistics are hard. On the LSAT, trust that when they're used, there's something wrong with them, and it usually has to do with the difference between a percent and the underlying amount it represents.

Incorrect. University degree-holders matter here—if there's one, the household counts in these stats. The stats don't change depending on whether there's a second household, let alone one without a college degree.

Incorrect. The argument is about living with one of these pets, not being the one who decided to adopt.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't causal, so this answer choice doesn't apply.