Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 335 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 335
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

Experimental psychology requires the application of statistics to interpret empirical data and assess their significance. A person will not be able to understand such applications without training in statistics. Therefore, the more training one has in statistics, the better one will be at research in experimental psychology.
Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?

A. Most people need the love and support of others; without it, they become depressed and unhappy. Therefore, in most instances, the more love and support a person receives, the happier that person will be.
B. Since in most jobs there are annual wage or salary increases, the longer one has worked, the more raises one will have received. Therefore, in a typical job, the longer one has worked, the greater one's income will be.
C. The main cause of heart attacks is arteriosclerosis, the buildup of plaque on the interior wall of the coronary arteries. It develops over an extended period of time. Therefore, if one is at risk for arteriosclerosis, one becomes more likely to suffer a heart attack as one gets older.
D. Since many disease processes are biochemical in nature, unless one understands chemistry one will not be able to understand the explanations for many diseases. Therefore, if one has no training in chemistry, one will not be able to master medicine.
E. Since most disease processes are biochemical in nature, an understanding of chemistry will enable one to understand most diseases. Therefore, one needs little more than training in chemistry to be able to master medicine.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A 🗳️
Heres the first, and only pure Parallel Reasoning question of the sectionalthough, as mentioned above, has a definite Parallel Reasoning feel to it. Mimic the flaw is our task, and let’s see, as always, if isolating the conclusion can be of any help. And it’s not hard to find, signaled by the trusty Keyword "Therefore…"
Paraphrased in general terms (which is how we always want to treat the conclusion in Parallel Reasoning questions), the last sentence says that the more of a certain thing you have, the better you’ll be at something else. A. and B. are passable on this front, including as they do a "more X, more Y" style of reasoning, but the rest don’t conform at all: C.’s element of likelihood has no counterpart in the original. D.’s "no training" doesn’t match "more training" in the stimulus, and D.’s conclusion about what will not happen is also out of place. E.s conclusion, meanwhile, deals with whats required to do something, which also doesnt conform to the passage conclusion’s "more/better" structure.
But there is a "requirement" element in the evidence, and that helps us to differentiate between the right answer and the fourth loser. The most glaring element of the first sentence is that one thing requires another, and comparing A. and B., only A. contains this elementpeople need love and support. B. describes a typical consequence of an activity(working), but that’s not the same thing. A. is the only choice that mimics the two main elements of the passage: the "more/better" structure of the conclusion, and the notion of necessity in the evidence.

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:43 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!