Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: You need bees for a great garden, and a beehive gets you bees. However, a beehive only pays for itself if you like honey. Therefore, if you don't want honey, you won't have a hive, and your garden will suffer.

Conclusion: Gardeners who do not use homegrown honey will likely lack excellent pollination in their gardens.

Reasoning: Bees are necessary for excellent pollination, and while beehives guarantee bees, keeping them is only economical if the gardener uses the honey.

Analysis: The argument makes a huge leap from 'not economical' to 'won't happen.' Just because something isn't a financial win doesn't mean a gardener won't do it—perhaps they just really want those abundant vegetables! It also assumes that a beehive is the only way to get bees, ignoring the possibility of wild bees or a neighbor's hive. Look for an answer that points out the confusion between a condition for being 'economical' and a condition for the event occurring at all.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

21.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the argument?

Correct Answer
D
It identifies the core oversight: bees could be present without a beehive, so concluding lack of excellent pollination from the lack of a beehive is unwarranted.
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