LSAT Explanation PT 20, S1, Q17: Whenever a company loses a major

LSAT Question Stem

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

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The argument can be broken down into the following structure:

Premise: Whenever a company loses a major product-liability lawsuit (LL), the value of the company's stocks falls significantly (SF).

Premise: Cotoy has long been involved in a major product-liability lawsuit, and its stocks fell significantly in value today.

Conclusion: Therefore, we can be sure that an unfavorable judgment against Cotoy in that lawsuit was announced earlier today.

The flaw in this argument is that it reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions. The author gives us the sufficient condition of losing a major product-liability lawsuit (LL), and the necessary condition of the stock falling (SF). Then, the author incorrectly reasons that because the stocks fell (SF), there must have been an unfavorable judgment (LL).

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Were there any other factors that could have caused the stocks to fall significantly?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices.

a) This answer choice does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage, as it does not reverse the sufficient and necessary conditions. Instead, it makes an unwarranted assumption about Shopwell's employees' behavior.

b) This answer choice also does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage. It does not reverse the sufficient and necessary conditions; instead, it makes a reasonable inference based on the given information.

c) This answer choice does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage, as it does not reverse the sufficient and necessary conditions. Instead, it suggests a possible solution to gain respect for a country's policies, but does not make the same mistake as the passage.

d) This is the correct answer. It parallels the flawed reasoning in the passage by reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions. The argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise: Whenever an entering student at Cashman College wins the Performance Fellowship (WF), he or she receives $10,000 (R$).

Premise: Eula, a student who has enrolled at Cashman, just received $10,000 from the college.

Conclusion: Therefore, Eula must have won the Performance Fellowship.

Like the passage, this answer choice reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions, leading to a flawed conclusion.

e) This answer choice does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage. Instead, it rests on a contrapositive, which is a valid form of reasoning. It does not reverse the sufficient and necessary conditions like the passage does.

In conclusion, the correct answer is (D), as it contains flawed reasoning that most closely parallels that in the passage by reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions.