LSAT Explanation PT 40, S3, Q17: People who have never been asked

LSAT Question Stem

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first break down the argument in the passage and identify its structure. The argument can be summarized as follows:

Premise: People who have never been asked to do more than they can easily do are people who never do all they can.

Premise: Alex has clearly not done all that he is capable of doing.

Conclusion: No one has ever pushed Alex to do more than what comes to him easily.

The question type for this problem is Parallel Flaw, which means we need to find an answer choice that contains a similar flaw in reasoning as the original argument.

Let's evaluate the argument by asking: "Is it true that if someone hasn't done all they are capable of doing, they have never been asked to do more than they can easily do?" This question will help us determine the validity of the argument.

Now, let's analyze each answer choice:

a) Anybody who has a dog knows the true value of companionship, and Alicia has demonstrated that she knows the true value of companionship; thus we can safely conclude that Alicia has a dog.

This answer choice presents a similar Mistaken Reversal flaw as the original argument:

Conditional rule: has a dog ‚Üí knows the value of companionship

Alicia: knows the value of companionship ‚Üí has a dog

This flaw mirrors the one in the original argument, making this the correct answer choice.

b) Anyone who discovers something new is someone who has examined all the possible solutions to a problem. Fran has surely never discovered something new. Therefore, Fran has never explored all the possible solutions to a problem.

This answer choice presents a Mistaken Negation flaw, which is different from the original argument's flaw:

Conditional Rule: Discovers something new ‚Üí has examined every solution

Fran: Hasn't discovered something new ‚Üí hasn't examined every solution

c) Any person who does not face sufficient challenges is a person who does not accomplish everything he or she can. Jill is a person who accomplishes everything she can, so Jill is a person who faces sufficient challenges.

This answer choice contains valid reasoning and is not flawed, so it cannot be the correct answer:

Conditional rule: Not face enough challenge ‚Üí does not accomplish all possible

Jill: Accomplishes all possible ‚Üí faces enough challenge

d) By definition, a polygon is any closed plane figure bounded by straight lines. That object pictured on the chalkboard is certainly a closed plane figure bounded by a large number of straight lines, so that object pictured on the chalkboard must be a polygon.

This answer choice also contains valid reasoning and is not flawed:

A polygon is any straight-lined, closed-plane figure. The figure is a straight-lined, closed-plane figure, so it must be a polygon.

e) People who have never lost something that they cannot afford to lose will be lax about keeping their property secure. Jon is lax about keeping property secure when it is something he can afford to lose, so Jon must never have lost anything.

This answer choice presents a different kind of flawed reasoning than the original argument:

Conditional rule: never lost something can't afford ‚Üí lax on security

Jon: lax on security with things he can afford to lose ‚Üí never lost anything

In conclusion, answer choice (a) contains a similar flaw in reasoning as the original argument, making it the correct answer.