PrepTest 113

[lcid:3550] Prep Test 113 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Bank deposits are credited 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 / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Deposit credited on date of transaction → Made before 3pm
Alicia knows the deposit was made before 3pm
Therefore - Alicia knows Deposit credited on date of transaction

Answer Anticipation

Don’t skim over the question stem here too quickly - it tells us that we need to match up two errors in reasoning here!
One of them is much easier to spot than the other. The stimulus starts with a conditional rule (“only when”), and then it establishes that Alicia knows the necessary condition of it was met, and concludes she knows that the sufficient condition will be met, as well. That’s an illegal reversal, so we need an answer that does the same thing.
The second flaw is harder to spot, but there is a concept raised that is related to a common flaw - what Alicia knows. Whenever the LSAT talks about someone’s subjective belief or knowledge, there’s always a chance that it’s messing it up. Let’s assume for a second the conditional logic wasn’t reversed. Does Alicia knowing that the deposit was made before 3pm guarantee that she knows it’ll be credited on the date of the transaction? It does not - she’d also have to know the (reversed) conditional. It’s possible that Alicia doesn’t know the timeline on which the bank credits deposits. We do because it’s established as a premise, but we can’t assume that just because it’s a fact that Alicia knows it.
Now, would you have definitely spotted this second flaw while working through this question? Nope. You may have missed it (though in the future always consider a Perception vs. Reality flaw when the argument discusses beliefs or knowledge). If that’s the case, you can still head into the answer and eliminate those that lack the illegal reversal, and then rely on finding an answer that mirrors the other aspects of the stimulus to pick an answer that’s more likely to be correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Journalists are the only Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Permitted to ask questions → Journalist. Marjorie is a journalist, so she can ask questions. This argument features the same illegal reversal as the stimulus, but it lacks the Perception vs. Reality flaw. If you had missed that flaw when looking at the stimulus, you still should have sided with another answer over this one as it doesn’t really share anything else in common with the stimulus other than the conditional logic.
  2. B
    We know that Patrice Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Patrice works → Thursday. Thursday, so Patrice is working. This argument also has the same illegal reversal, and while it does talk about what someone knows, it’s what “[w]e know,” not someone from the situation being described.
  3. C
    It is clear that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    George promoted → Helen resigns. George knows Helen resigns. Therefore, George knows George promoted. This argument features the same illegal reversal as the stimulus and it mirrors the knowledge aspect of it. While George may know that Helen is resigning, he may not know that this puts him up for the promotion. This answer features both flaws from the stimulus, so it’s the correct answer.
  4. D
    John believes that 4 Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This argument doesn’t feature a conditional. It’s also valid, as it establishes George’s knowledge of both aspects of the conclusion.
  5. E
    Pat wants to become Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    First, if there’s a conditional, it’s: Social Worker → Poorly paid, and the stimulus establishes that Pat wants to meet the sufficient condition, so there’s no illegal reversal. There’s also no discussion of Pat’s knowledge here, just his wants, which raises a separate flaw - someone who wants a certain outcome doesn’t necessarily want everything that comes with it!

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion