Flawed Parallel ReasoningDiff: Hard
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: The author claims that no cover means no birds, because squirrels hate covers but love eating bird food, and birds hate squirrels.
Conclusion: A bird feeder will fail to attract many birds if it lacks a protective cover.
Reasoning: Squirrels eating from a feeder prevents birds from coming, and squirrels only eat from feeders that don't have covers.
Analysis: This argument contains a formal logic error known as a 'Mistaken Negation' or 'Mistaken Reversal.' The premise states that a cover is a *necessary* condition to keep squirrels away (No Cover -> Squirrels). We also know Squirrels -> No Birds. The author concludes that No Cover -> No Birds. While this sounds plausible, the logic is flawed because it treats a necessary condition for an event as if it were a sufficient one. In the parallel answer, look for a structure where 'A leads to B' and 'A requires C,' leading to the flawed conclusion that 'C leads to B.' Squirrels might be one reason birds stay away, but the argument assumes they are the only reason or that the lack of a cover automatically triggers the bird-scaring event.
Conclusion: A bird feeder will fail to attract many birds if it lacks a protective cover.
Reasoning: Squirrels eating from a feeder prevents birds from coming, and squirrels only eat from feeders that don't have covers.
Analysis: This argument contains a formal logic error known as a 'Mistaken Negation' or 'Mistaken Reversal.' The premise states that a cover is a *necessary* condition to keep squirrels away (No Cover -> Squirrels). We also know Squirrels -> No Birds. The author concludes that No Cover -> No Birds. While this sounds plausible, the logic is flawed because it treats a necessary condition for an event as if it were a sufficient one. In the parallel answer, look for a structure where 'A leads to B' and 'A requires C,' leading to the flawed conclusion that 'C leads to B.' Squirrels might be one reason birds stay away, but the argument assumes they are the only reason or that the lack of a cover automatically triggers the bird-scaring event.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage25.The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?
Correct Answer
B
It matches the form: If pressure is too low, the tire wears out prematurely (P -> W). Pressure becomes too low only if the owner neglects to check (P -> N). The conclusion is that if the owner neglects to check, the tire will wear out prematurely (N -> W). This treats neglect (a necessary condition for low pressure) as if it were sufficient, paralleling the original’s mistaken reversal.
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