LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
December 2011 LSAT
Inspector: The only fingerprints on the premises are those of the owner, Mr. Tannisch. Therefore, whoever now has his...
on March 24, 2015
Flawed Parallel Reasoning
Please explain this question. Thanks,
on March 27, 2015
We are told that the only fingerprints found on Mr. Tannisch's premises were his own. From this the argument concludes that Mr. Tannisch's guest's missing diamonds must have been taken by someone who wore gloves.
What's the flaw here? Well, we haven't yet ruled out an "inside job." The only fingerprints found were Mr. Tannisch's. So, why have we ruled out Mr. Tannisch being the thief?
Likewise, answer choice (A) describes a situation where the option of "inside job" is being ignored. All of the campers who became ill this afternoon ate only food from the camp cafeteria. We have not yet ruled out the possibility that the food at the cafeteria was contaminated. So, it is flawed to conclude that the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate.
As you can see, answer choice (A) and the argument in the passage have the same flaw in their reasoning.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.