Flawed ReasoningDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: Joan did great on her homework. If she had also aced her paper, she wouldn't have needed the presentation to pass. Since she didn't ace the paper, the author thinks she's now forced to do the presentation.
Conclusion: Joan will be required to complete the class presentation in order to pass the course.
Reasoning: If Joan had earned an A on her term paper, she would have been able to pass without the presentation, but she failed to earn an A on that paper.
Analysis: This argument commits a classic formal logic error known as 'Negating the Antecedent.' The author establishes a sufficient condition (getting an A on the paper) for a result (passing without a presentation), then assumes that because the condition wasn't met, the result is impossible. Joan might be a bit bummed about her paper grade, but it doesn't mean she's out of options; she might still pass without the presentation through some other means. Look for an answer that points out the author is treating a sufficient condition as if it were a necessary one.
Conclusion: Joan will be required to complete the class presentation in order to pass the course.
Reasoning: If Joan had earned an A on her term paper, she would have been able to pass without the presentation, but she failed to earn an A on that paper.
Analysis: This argument commits a classic formal logic error known as 'Negating the Antecedent.' The author establishes a sufficient condition (getting an A on the paper) for a result (passing without a presentation), then assumes that because the condition wasn't met, the result is impossible. Joan might be a bit bummed about her paper grade, but it doesn't mean she's out of options; she might still pass without the presentation through some other means. Look for an answer that points out the author is treating a sufficient condition as if it were a necessary one.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage3.The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument
Correct Answer
B
B pinpoints the flaw: the argument presupposes, without justification, that not getting an A on the term paper prevents passing without the presentation. That is, it treats a sufficient condition as necessary (negating the antecedent).
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