Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: If you walk to school, you definitely go home for lunch; therefore, some students with part-time jobs must not be walkers.

Conclusion: Some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school.

Reasoning: Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch.

Analysis: This is a Sufficient Assumption question where we need to bridge a gap between the premise and the conclusion. The premise establishes a conditional rule: Walking to School implies Going Home for Lunch. The conclusion introduces a new group—students with part-time jobs—and claims some of them do not walk. To make this follow logically, we need to connect 'part-time jobs' to 'not going home for lunch.' If we assume that some students with jobs cannot go home for lunch, the contrapositive of our premise (Not Home for Lunch implies Not Walking) guarantees they aren't walkers.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

19.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Correct Answer
D
D says some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs (∃ ¬L and J). With ¬L → ¬W (from W → L), those same students are J and ¬W, which is exactly the conclusion.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep