Flawed Parallel ReasoningDiff: Hard
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: All the Labs in this area are good dogs. Since dogs have to be trained to be good, the owner thinks it's the training, not the breed, that makes them behave.
Conclusion: The good behavior of local Labrador retrievers is caused by their training rather than their genetic makeup.
Reasoning: Every Labrador in the neighborhood is well-behaved, and training is a necessary requirement for any pet to be well-behaved.
Analysis: The argument identifies a necessary condition for a result and then incorrectly concludes that this condition is the sole cause of that result. It ignores the possibility that both factors—training and genetics—could be contributing to the behavior simultaneously. When looking for a parallel, seek out a choice that takes a requirement for a certain outcome and treats it as the exclusive explanation, while dismissing an alternative influence. It's like saying you need a key to start a car, so the key is the only reason the car moves, ignoring the engine entirely.
Conclusion: The good behavior of local Labrador retrievers is caused by their training rather than their genetic makeup.
Reasoning: Every Labrador in the neighborhood is well-behaved, and training is a necessary requirement for any pet to be well-behaved.
Analysis: The argument identifies a necessary condition for a result and then incorrectly concludes that this condition is the sole cause of that result. It ignores the possibility that both factors—training and genetics—could be contributing to the behavior simultaneously. When looking for a parallel, seek out a choice that takes a requirement for a certain outcome and treats it as the exclusive explanation, while dismissing an alternative influence. It's like saying you need a key to start a car, so the key is the only reason the car moves, ignoring the engine entirely.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage26.The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most closely parallel to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
Correct Answer
B
It notes more crashes when it snows, then asserts there would not be crashes unless people were careless (crash → careless). From that necessity, it concludes it’s not icy roads but carelessness that causes crashes when it snows—wrongly excluding icy roads as a contributor. This mirrors the original’s move from a necessary condition to an exclusive-cause claim.
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