Flawed Parallel ReasoningDiff: Hard
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: The author claims that because one-bedroom apartments don't have balconies, and balconies are linked to fireplaces, one-bedroom apartments can't have fireplaces.
Conclusion: None of the one-bedroom apartments in the building have fireplaces.
Reasoning: Every apartment with a balcony has a fireplace, and none of the apartments with balconies are one-bedroom units.
Analysis: This is a formal logic error involving a mistaken negation or a confusion of sufficient conditions. The premise states that a balcony is sufficient for a fireplace (B -> F) and that balconies and one-bedrooms are mutually exclusive (B -> Not 1BR). The author incorrectly concludes that 1BRs cannot have fireplaces. However, fireplaces could easily exist in apartments without balconies. To parallel this flaw, look for an argument that says 'All A are B; No A is C; therefore, No C is B.' It’s like saying all dogs are mammals and no dogs are cats, so no cats are mammals—obviously silly, right?
Conclusion: None of the one-bedroom apartments in the building have fireplaces.
Reasoning: Every apartment with a balcony has a fireplace, and none of the apartments with balconies are one-bedroom units.
Analysis: This is a formal logic error involving a mistaken negation or a confusion of sufficient conditions. The premise states that a balcony is sufficient for a fireplace (B -> F) and that balconies and one-bedrooms are mutually exclusive (B -> Not 1BR). The author incorrectly concludes that 1BRs cannot have fireplaces. However, fireplaces could easily exist in apartments without balconies. To parallel this flaw, look for an argument that says 'All A are B; No A is C; therefore, No C is B.' It’s like saying all dogs are mammals and no dogs are cats, so no cats are mammals—obviously silly, right?
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage24.The flawed nature of the argument above can most effectively be demonstrated by noting that, by parallel reasoning, we could conclude that
Correct Answer
C
It matches: Every cat has fur (Cat -> Fur). No cat is a dog (Cat -> ~~Dog~~). Therefore, no dog has fur (Dog -> ~~Fur~~). That’s the same invalid leap as the stimulus.
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