Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: The argument claims that because historians can spot trends and trend-spotters can identify what's important, then anyone who identifies what's important must be a historian.

Conclusion: Anyone capable of distinguishing the significant from the insignificant is a historian.

Reasoning: All historians can spot trends, and all those who can spot trends can distinguish significance.

Analysis: This is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question centered on a 'Mistaken Reversal.' The premises create a unidirectional chain: if you are a historian, then you can spot trends, and if you can spot trends, then you can distinguish significance (A → B → C). The conclusion then incorrectly flips this to say that if you can distinguish significance, you must be a historian (C → A). To find the match, look for an answer choice that establishes a similar conditional chain and then concludes that the presence of the final characteristic guarantees the first.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

18.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely resembles that in the argument above?

Correct Answer
A
A matches the flawed form. All figures of speech (F) -> expressions used for emotional impact (E); all E -> used by poets (P); conclusion: all P -> F. That mirrors A->B->C, therefore C->A.
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