Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Everyone who joined the contest got a T-shirt; Juan has the T-shirt, so the author assumes Juan joined the contest.

Conclusion: Juan must have entered the software company's logo contest.

Reasoning: The contest rules stated that everyone who entered would receive a T-shirt with the new logo, and Juan possesses such a T-shirt.

Analysis: This argument is a classic case of 'confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary one.' The rule says: If you enter, then you get a shirt. It does *not* say: If you have a shirt, then you must have entered. Juan could have bought the shirt, found it, or received it as a gift from an actual entrant. The flaw is assuming that the contest was the *only* way to obtain that shirt. Look for an answer that identifies this 'mistaken reversal' of the logic.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

16.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

Correct Answer
B
The argument takes a sufficient condition (entering) as necessary for the outcome (having the T-shirt). This is the classic mistaken reversal/affirming the consequent.
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