Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: The speaker argues that because a gray rabbit is definitely a rabbit, it logically follows that a person suspected of a crime is definitely a criminal.

Conclusion: The claim that all suspected criminals are criminals must be true.

Reasoning: The argument draws an analogy from the factually true statement that all gray rabbits are rabbits.

Analysis: The argument falls into a trap by assuming that all adjectives function the same way. In the case of the 'gray rabbit,' the adjective 'gray' simply narrows the category of rabbits without changing the fundamental nature of the subject. However, 'suspected' is a qualifying adjective that indicates the subject may not actually belong to the category of 'criminals' at all. To find the flaw, look for an answer choice that highlights this shift in how the modifier affects the noun it precedes.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

1.

The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to recognize that

Correct Answer
C
C correctly states that the relationship between being a gray rabbit and being a rabbit (a definitional subset) is not the same kind as the relationship between being a suspected criminal and being a criminal (a non-definitional, uncertain status). That mismatch is exactly why the analogy fails.
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