Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: If you have two things—fame and ads—your tour will work. Julia is famous and her tour worked, so she must have had ads.

Conclusion: Julia's book tour must have been well publicized.

Reasoning: A tour succeeds if it is well publicized and the author is established; since Julia is established and her tour succeeded, the publicity must have been present.

Analysis: The argument commits a classic formal logic error known as affirming the consequent. It provides a sufficient condition for success (Publicity + Established) and then assumes that because success occurred, all parts of that specific condition must have been met. It ignores the possibility that a tour could be successful for other reasons even without publicity. To match this flaw, look for an answer that treats a sufficient condition as if it were the only way to achieve a result.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

22.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most closely parallel to the pattern of flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above?

Correct Answer
C
C exactly mirrors the flaw: (Kept in shade ∧ Watered >2x weekly) → Die; given Shade and Dead, conclude Watered >2x weekly. This is the same (A ∧ B) → C; C and A; therefore B invalid pattern.
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