Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: To get a specific job license, you must meet two requirements; since Marie meets both, the speaker assumes she is guaranteed to get the license.

Conclusion: Marie will definitely be licensed as an emergency medical technician.

Reasoning: Licensing requires both a high school diploma and CPR competence, and Marie possesses both of these qualifications.

Analysis: This argument commits a classic 'sufficient vs. necessary' error by treating requirements as guarantees. Just because you have the prerequisites for a license doesn't mean there aren't other factors—like an application fee or a background check—that could still get in the way. When looking for a parallel flaw, seek out a choice that says 'To do X, you need A and B; this person has A and B, so they will definitely do X.' It's like saying that because you have a ticket and a tuxedo, you are guaranteed to win an Oscar.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

8.

Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning that most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

Correct Answer
B
B matches the flaw. It states effectiveness as a teacher requires fluency in at least two languages (E → 2+ languages), then concludes that having 2+ languages makes one effective (2+ languages → E). That’s the same necessary/sufficient confusion as in 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
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep