Practice Questions

Go ahead. Give this Logic Games Practice Question from Manhattan LSAT a try:  Pitch Meetings.

A screenwriter has pitch meetings with six producers – F, G, H, I, J, and K – over the course of a day. He will meet with each producer once, and one at a time. The following conditions apply:

• The screenwriter will meet with K before G if he meets with F before J.
• The screenwriter will meet with G before H only if he meets with I before J.
• The screenwriter will meet with F before I if, and only if, he meets with F after J.
• The screenwriter cannot meet with G last.

1. Which of the following could be the order of meetings?

(A) H, J, G, F, I, K
(B) I, H, F, J, K, G
(C) G, H, J, F, I, K
(D) H, G, J, I, K, F
(E) I, G, F, K, J, H

2. Each of the following could be true except:

(A) J is first.
(B) J is last.
(C) I is first.
(D) I is last.
(E) G is first.

3. If the screenwriter meets with I second, it must be true that…

(A) K is first.
(B) G is third.
(C) He meets with either F or G third.
(D) He meets with either J or H last.
(E) He meets with G before he meets with H.

4. If the screenwriter meets with K first and H last, how many different ways can the meetings be arranged?

(A) 1
(B) 2
(C) 4
(D) 6
(E) 8

5. If the screenwriter meets with K fifth, it must be false that…
(A) G is before F.
(B) G is before H.
(C) G is before J.
(D) H is before J.
(E) H is before F.

6. Which of the following pairs of assignments would completely determine the order of meetings?

(A) J is first, and K is last.
(B) J is first, and H is second.
(C) F is third, and H is fourth.
(D) G is second, H is third.
(E) H is fifth, and J is last.

Click here for some excellent explanations/solutions to this game by Manhattan LSAT.

This week, see how you do on the “parallel reasoning” question below:

Strategists predict that an armed civil conflict will occur if the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if oppressed religious groups are not given more freedom. But the liberation of oppressed religious groups would lead to the continued dissemination of separatist propaganda. Therefore, armed civil conflict is inevitable.

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

(A) Pollution will increase if the cost of energy consumption does not increase or if we do not become more energy-efficient. But we will achieve greater energy efficiency if the cost of energy consumption does increase. Therefore, pollution will not increase.

(B) If alumni contributions remain at their current level or if we fail to recruit top talent, then the basketball team’s record will most likely worsen. But we will fail to recruit top talent. Therefore, the basketball team’s record will most likely worsen.

(C) If the automation of tasks increases or worker satisfaction does not decline, then productivity at the factory will rise. But if there is a decline in worker satisfaction, that will lead to the automation of more tasks. Therefore, productivity at the factory will rise.

(D) If the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if media censorship is not relaxed, the frequency of political protests will increase. But the threat of trade embargoes ensures both that such dissemination will not continue and that media censorship will be relaxed. Thus, the frequency of political protests will not increase.

(E) If authoritarian regimes are not weakened and religious freedoms are not expanded, then living conditions will continue to stagnate. But due to a lack of international political will, authoritarian regimes will certainly maintain their strength and religious freedoms will not expand. Thus, living conditions will continue to stagnate.

Answer Explanation
Structure:

1. If X occurs (separatist propaganda continues) or if Y does not occur (oppressed groups are not given more freedom), then an outcome Z (armed civil conflict) will occur.
2. If Y does occur, then X will occur.
3. Conclusion: It is inevitable that Z will occur.

Symbolized:

1. X or ~ Y ⇒ Z
2. Y ⇒ X
3. Conclusion: Z

The answer will mimic this structure by providing evidence that each of two conditions can guarantee an outcome and that if one condition doesn’t hold then the other must, validly concluding from this that the outcome must occur.
Choice C: If X occurs (“automation of tasks increases”) or Y does not occur (“worker satisfaction does not decline”), then an outcome Z (“productivity… will rise”) occurs; this matches (1). If Y does occur, then X will also occur; this matches (2). Conclusion: Z must occur; this matches (3). Choice C is correct.
Choice A: While an outcome (“pollution will increase”) is guaranteed by either of two conditions, the conclusion that it does not occur (“pollution will not increase”) does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, unlike the argument in the passage, the argument in the answer choice is flawed ( ~ X or ~ Y ⇒ Z; Y ⇒ X; therefore ~ Z).
Choice B: The evidence, “we will fail to recruit top talent,” does not match (2), because it addresses only one of the two conditions rather than a relationship between them. Furthermore, the conclusion that an outcome will most likely occur does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur.
Choice D: The conclusion that an outcome guaranteed by either of two conditions does not occur (“the frequency… will not increase”) does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition (“threat of trade embargoes”) that has no analogue in the original.
Choice E: The evidence that both of two conditions lead to an outcome (~ X and ~ Y ⇒ Z) does not match the passage’s evidence (1) that either of two conditions lead to an outcome (X or ~ Y ⇒ Z). Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition (“lack of international political will”) that has no analogue in the original.

This question was brought to you by the fantastic LSAT teachers at Knewton. Click here to learn more about how Knewton’s LSAT prep course will help you reach your target score. 

***Law School Podcaster listeners can take $300 off  the full course price at Knewton LSAT Prep when you use promo code KNEWTON-LSP.***

This simulated LSAT question has been provided by Blueprint LSAT Prep.  Because LSAC rules prohibit the use of actual LSAT questions on the internet, this question has been written by Blueprint founder Trent Teti and tests a type of argument that frequently appears on the LSAT.  This week’s installment:  The fallacy of composition.

In an unprecedented fluke maelstrom, the Bloomville harbor bridge has recently collapsed into the sea.  Faced with the daunting task of rehabilitating the coastal city’s major transit and commerce center, Mayor Schmidt has undertaken a search for engineers to spearhead the project.  Realizing that only the knowledge of a professional industrial engineer could properly handle the rigorous task at hand, Mayor Schmidt has rounded up all eight qualified engineers in the hopes of selecting a viable candidate.  Unfortunately, after each engineer was individually interviewed for the position, no single candidate presented the sufficient skill set to oversee the project.  As a result, Mayor Schmidt has decided that the bridge cannot be repaired, and has urged Bloomville’s residents to find alternative means of travel and employment.

Which of the following best describes the error in reasoning in the argument above?

(A)  The argument falsely assumes that a condition sufficient for a given situation is in fact a necessary prerequisite

(B)  The use of the term “engineer” has shifted irrelevantly during the course of the argument

(C)  The argument neglects to consider that a composite of several variables may contain a quality not found within the individual variable themselves

(D)  The argument improperly impugns the source of a claim rather than its content

(E)  Mayor Schmidt has failed to consider solutions that don’t involve skilled engineers

For a detailed explanation and answer to this question, refer to the QuickTime movie, below, featuring Blueprint LSAT Prep veteran instructor Jay. Click here for a larger version.

Check out Blueprint’s LSAT and law school discussion board.

How tough is the LSAT?  This week, see how you do on the “parallel reasoning” question below:

Strategists predict that an armed civil conflict will occur if the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if oppressed religious groups are not given more freedom. But the liberation of oppressed religious groups would lead to the continued dissemination of separatist propaganda. Therefore, armed civil conflict is inevitable.

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

(A) Pollution will increase if the cost of energy consumption does not increase or if we do not become more energy-efficient. But we will achieve greater energy efficiency if the cost of energy consumption does increase. Therefore, pollution will not increase.

(B) If alumni contributions remain at their current level or if we fail to recruit top talent, then the basketball team’s record will most likely worsen. But we will fail to recruit top talent. Therefore, the basketball team’s record will most likely worsen.

(C) If the automation of tasks increases or worker satisfaction does not decline, then productivity at the factory will rise. But if there is a decline in worker satisfaction, that will lead to the automation of more tasks. Therefore, productivity at the factory will rise.

(D) If the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if media censorship is not relaxed, the frequency of political protests will increase. But the threat of trade embargoes ensures both that such dissemination will not continue and that media censorship will be relaxed. Thus, the frequency of political protests will not increase.

(E) If authoritarian regimes are not weakened and religious freedoms are not expanded, then living conditions will continue to stagnate. But due to a lack of international political will, authoritarian regimes will certainly maintain their strength and religious freedoms will not expand. Thus, living conditions will continue to stagnate.

Answer Explanation
Structure:

1. If X occurs (separatist propaganda continues) or if Y does not occur (oppressed groups are not given more freedom), then an outcome Z (armed civil conflict) will occur.
2. If Y does occur, then X will occur.
3. Conclusion: It is inevitable that Z will occur.

Symbolized:

1. X or ~ Y ⇒ Z
2. Y ⇒ X
3. Conclusion: Z

The answer will mimic this structure by providing evidence that each of two conditions can guarantee an outcome and that if one condition doesn’t hold then the other must, validly concluding from this that the outcome must occur.
 

Choice C: If X occurs (“automation of tasks increases”) or Y does not occur (“worker satisfaction does not decline”), then an outcome Z (“productivity… will rise”) occurs; this matches (1). If Y does occur, then X will also occur; this matches (2). Conclusion: Z must occur; this matches (3). Choice C is correct.
Choice A: While an outcome (“pollution will increase”) is guaranteed by either of two conditions, the conclusion that it does not occur (“pollution will not increase”) does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, unlike the argument in the passage, the argument in the answer choice is flawed ( ~ X or ~ Y ⇒ Z; Y ⇒ X; therefore ~ Z).
Choice B: The evidence, “we will fail to recruit top talent,” does not match (2), because it addresses only one of the two conditions rather than a relationship between them. Furthermore, the conclusion that an outcome will most likely occur does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur.
Choice D: The conclusion that an outcome guaranteed by either of two conditions does not occur (“the frequency… will not increase”) does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition (“threat of trade embargoes”) that has no analogue in the original.
Choice E: The evidence that both of two conditions lead to an outcome (~ X and ~ Y ⇒ Z) does not match the passage’s evidence (1) that either of two conditions lead to an outcome (X or ~ Y ⇒ Z). Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition (“lack of international political will”) that has no analogue in the original.

This question was brought to you by the fantastic LSAT teachers at Knewton. Click here to learn more about how Knewton’s LSAT prep course will help you reach your target score.

These questions are provided by Get Prepped LSAT prep. Get Prepped exclusively teaches the LSAT and offers affordable tutoring and classes. These questions are from Ace the LSAT Logic Games, which is available for purchase.

Employee lunch groups

The six employees of a small company—Cal, Dave, Fred, Greg, Harrison, and Jake—may or may not eat lunch during a workday. Employees may eat lunch by themselves, or as a part of a group, but only one group or a single employee will eat lunch during the workday. The following conditions must apply:

If Dave eats lunch, then Fred eats lunch with him.

Cal and Greg do not eat lunch together.

If Harrison eats lunch, then he does not eat alone.

Jake will not eat lunch unless exactly two people join him.

If only two people eat lunch, then Greg does not eat lunch.

1. Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the employees who eat lunch during a workday?
   

   (A) Cal, Dave, Fred, Jake

   (B) Dave, Harrison

   (C) Fred, Harrison, Jake

   (D) Cal, Dave, Fred, Greg

   (E) Fred, Greg

2. What is the maximum number of employees who can eat lunch together during a workday?
   

   (A) 2

   (B) 3

   (C) 4

   (D) 5

   (E) 6

3. If Greg eats lunch, then which one of the following CANNOT be true?
   

   (A) Both Fred and Jake eat lunch.

   (B) Both Dave and Jake eat lunch.

   (C) Neither Dave nor Jake eats lunch.

   (D) Neither Harrison nor Fred eats lunch.

   (E) Both Fred and Jake eat lunch.

4. If exactly four employees eat lunch, then which one of the following could be true?
   

   (A) Harrison does not eat lunch.

   (B) Cal eats lunch.

   (C) Dave does not eat lunch.

   (D) Jake eats lunch.

   (E) Fred does not eat lunch.

5. If Jake eats lunch, then each of the following pairs of employees could eat lunch with him EXCEPT:
   

   (A) Cal and Dave

   (B) Cal and Harrison

   (C) Dave and Fred

   (D) Fred and Greg

   (E) Greg and Harrison

Here’s the solution from Get Prepped:

Logic games always require you to make extra deductions.  With some games, you can make at least some deductions immediately after reading the rules.  Other times, like in this game, you cannot easily make warranted conclusions until the questions provide more information to anchor the diagram.  You cannot excel on the LSAT until you develop an instinct for when to stop attempting to make conclusions and move to the questions.  Although it is always possible to do permutations, this is usually a waste of precious time.

A standard mono-group selection diagram works well for this game.  Include all the members in each column and use arrows to show the relationships created by the rules.  G, H, and J all have certain restrictions.  H cannot eat alone, so H eats with one or more employees.  J eats with exactly two other employees.  G either eats alone or with two or more employees.  In other words, G does not eat with exactly one other employee; G eats with zero, two, or more other employees.  All of this is noted under the main diagram.

1. (C) – With “possible arrangement” questions, simply eliminate answer choices that violate the explicit rules.(A) J will not have lunch unless exactly two people join him, Rule 4.(B) If D eats lunch, F eats with him, Rule 1.(C) * This is viable lunch group; no rules are violated.(D) This violates Rule 2, because C and G are together.(E) This answer choice violates Rule 5.
2. (C) – What is the maximum number of employees who can eat together?  Start with the highest number.  Can all six eat together?  No, because C and G are mutually exclusive.  Can five eat together?  No, because if J is eating, then exactly two others are permitted.  Can four eat together? Yes, one possible group is CDFH.(A) See the analysis.(B) See the analysis.(C) * See the analysis.(D) See the analysis.(E) See the analysis.
3. (B) – If G eats lunch, can G eat alone?  Yes, G can eat lunch alone.  Can G eat with exactly one other employee?  No, Rule 5 prohibits this.  Can G eat with two or three other employees?  Yes.  Keep this in mind while considering the answer choices.
   (A)  As long as G, F, and one other employee, like J, eat together, this is a possible lunch group.(B)  * Can both D and J eat lunch with G?  G, J, and one other employee can eat lunch together, but if that third employee is D, then Rule 1 requires that F also join the group.  But J is only allowed to eat with two other employees, so this cannot be true.(C)  If G eats alone, then neither D nor J eats lunch.(D)  See (C).(E)   It is possible that G, F, and J all eat lunch together.
4. (B) – If exactly four employees eat lunch, you should look at the work done for question 13.  In that question, we learned that CDFH was a valid lunch group of four employees.  It is also possible to substitute G for C.  Keep this in mind while checking the answer choices.(A)  We know that that H can eat lunch.  Must H eat lunch in a group of four?  Yes, because it is not possible to substitute either G or J for H.(B)  *We know that C can eat lunch.  We also know that C can be replaced by G.(C)  Similar to (A), D must eat lunch in a group of four.(D)  J can never eat lunch in a group of four, due to Rule 4.(E)   F must eat lunch in any group of four.
    
5. (A) – Starting with Rule 4, J must eat lunch with exactly two other employees.  Four of the following pairs will be possible, one will not.(A)  * C and D cannot eat lunch with J.  If D eats lunch, then F must also eat lunch.  J cannot eat with three other employees.(B)  C and H can eat with J.  Rule 2 specifies that H does not eat alone, so that is satisfied.(C)  D and F can eat with J.  All rules are satisfied.(D)  F and G can eat with J. Just because F is present does not mean D must be.(E)   G and H can eat with J. Rule 5 specifies that G does not eat with exactly one other employee.

These questions are taken from Ace the LSAT Logic Games, by Get Prepped. Get Prepped offers affordable LSAT prep classes and LSAT tutoring.

Knewton’s LSAT course gives students access to live and on-demand lessons, customizable quizzes and all 60 official tests for an entire year. With a database of over 6,000 official LSAC questions and a system that tracks students’ progress on every LSAT concept, Knewton is powerful enough to guarantee at least a 5-pt increase — or the course is free.

This week, see how you do on the “strengthening” question below:

When the pistol shrimp snaps its claw, a cavitation bubble is projected, releasing 190 decibels of sound when it pops. Researchers have hypothesized that the acoustic pressure resulting from this sound is strong enough to stun or kill nearby fish or shrimp, and that this is the sole method by which the pistol shrimp hunts for prey.

Each of the following, if true, provides some support for the researchers’ hypothesis EXCEPT:
(A) Acoustic pressure that is over 130 decibels is known to debilitate and cause violent pain in animals.
(B) The grip of a pistol shrimp’s claw is forceful enough to incapacitate even relatively large undersea creatures.
(C) The pistol shrimp’s claws are too unwieldy to allow the shrimp to catch prey manually.
(D) Researchers suspect that the bottlenose dolphin uses its tail to generate acoustic pressure that disorients prey.
(E) The pistol shrimp is slower than most other shrimp species and is unable to chase after fast-moving prey.

Answer Explanation
Researchers’ hypothesis:

1. The acoustic pressure resulting from these cavitation bubbles is strong enough to kill fish or shrimp.
2. The pistol shrimp hunts only by stunning or killing its prey through acoustic pressure.

Observations:

1. Pistol shrimp project a cavitation bubble.
2. The cavitation bubble produces a 190 decibel sound.

The answer should either weaken or fail to affect the researchers’ hypothesis.
Choice B: This choice presents an alternative method by which the shrimp might hunt. If the shrimp’s grip is strong enough to “incapacitate” prey, the sound produced by the claw may have little to no effect on the prey; the grip is sufficient for hunting. Choice B is correct.
Choice A: Per observation (2), the pistol shrimp’s bubbles are louder than sounds that are known to cause pain and to debilitate animals. This supports claim (1) of the hypothesis, that a louder sound may stun or kill nearby animals.
Choice C: If the pistol shrimp’s claws were too unwieldy to allow for manual hunting, the alternate proposal, that these shrimp hunt through the use of cavitation bubbles, is strengthened.
Choice D: This choice strengthens by analogy. If other underwater animals, such as the dolphin, hunt using acoustic pressure, it is possible that pistol shrimp do the same.
Choice E: Because this choice notes that pistol shrimp are unable to chase after their prey and thus to hunt effectively, the hypothesis that their sole hunting method is to project cavitation bubbles, per observation (1), is strengthened.
 

 This question was brought to you by the fantastic LSAT teachers at Knewton. Click here to learn more about how Knewton’s LSAT prep course will help you reach your target score. 

This simulated LSAT question has been provided by Blueprint LSAT Prep.  Because LSAC rules prohibit the use of actual LSAT questions on the internet, this question has been written by Blueprint founder Trent Teti and tests a type of argument that frequently appears on the LSAT.  This week’s installment:  The fallacy of composition. 

The question

Kelly likes chocolate more than any other food in the world.  Local restaurant Risby’s uses chocolate in its quiche, so it’s certain that Kelly will like Risby’s quiche.

 The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it:

 (A) inappropriately takes for granted that because Kelly likes one aspect of the quiche, he’ll like the entire quiche

(B) justifies a generalization on the basis of one example

(C) attempts to compare two quantities that are not comparable in any way

(D) assumes that because someone currently likes chocolate, then he will in the future

(E)  inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts

What to do

First, read the prompt. At Blueprint, we label this type of question a “flaw” question because you’re searching for the flaw in the argument.  Reading the prompt first and classifying it lets you know what you’re looking for in the stimulus.  In this instance, we know we’re dealing with a flawed argument, so you should actively search for the conclusion and premises in the argument, as well as keeping an eye out for the flaw being committed.

 Conclusion and premises

In this case, the conclusion is that it is certain that Kelly will like Risby’s quiche.  The premises, or support, for the argument is that Kelly likes chocolate more than any other food in the world.  Hurray for Kelly.  He’s clearly hit the jackpot by finding out about Risby’s quiche.  Or has he?

 Evaluating the argument

While it’s true that Kelly likes chocolate more than any other food in the world, the quiche at Risby’s isn’t entirely made of chocolate – it’s likely it’s just one ingredient of many.  There may be eggs, peppers, and other ingredients that Kelly hates.  In other words, just because Kelly likes one ingredient in the quiche, that doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily going to like the quiche as a whole.

The fallacy of composition

This flaw is known as the fallacy of composition and it crops up fairly often on the LSAT.  Just because one part of the quiche (chocolate) has a certain property (tasting good to Kelly) doesn’t mean that the whole (the entire quiche) has the property of the part (tasting good to Kelly).

Whenever an argument on the LSAT posits that because something has a property, its part must have those properties, or that because a part of something has a property, then the whole must have that property, keep an eye out for the fallacy of composition.

The answer choices

 (A) is the correct answer because it properly identifies the flaw.  Just because Kelly likes one aspect of the quiche (chocolate), this doesn’t mean he’ll like the entire quiche.  (B) is incorrect because, while the argument does justify a generalization (that Kelly will like Risby’s quiche based on his liking chocolate), this is not the flaw in the argument.  (C) is incorrect because the quantities are comparable (both involve chocolate), so this is not the flaw.  (D) describes a temporal fallacy that does occur on the LSAT, but is not the flaw in this argument  (E) like (D), (E) describes a fallacy that does occur on the LSAT, but because the argument does not appeal to an authority, it is not the flaw for this particular argument.

There you have it, LSAT studiers.  Remember to be careful of arguments that use a part to justify a whole, or vice versa.  We would also advise against any chocolate quiches, from Risby’s or elsewhere.

Simulated LSAT question by Blueprint founder Trent Teti.  Blueprint provides 100-hour live LSAT courses throughout the US and our newest online course, Blueprint:  The Movie 2.0 with hand-drawn animation delivered via high-definition video.

Knewton’s LSAT course gives students access to live and on-demand lessons, customizable quizzes and all 60 official tests for an entire year. With a database of over 6,000 official LSAC questions and a system that tracks students’ progress on every LSAT concept, Knewton is powerful enough to guarantee at least a 5-pt increase — or the course is free.

Do you think you know the answer? Watch Brad explain the setup and explanation for this Logic Game created by Knewton below:

These practice LSAT questions are provided by Get Prepped! Get Prepped offers affordable LSAT prep, exclusively teaches the LSAT and offers tutoring, live classes, and video classes. These questions are from Get Prepped’s Ace the LSAT Logic Games. A detailed solution follows the question.

Tennis Games

On a single day a tennis instructor must schedule lessons with each of six different students—Dunn, Fick, Green, Hines, James, and Xavier. The instructor meets with exactly one student at a time, and each lesson is exactly one hour long. The times available for scheduling the lessons are 9:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 12:00 noon, 1:00 PM, and 2:00 PM.

The following conditions apply:

• Xavier’s lesson must be scheduled at some time before Fick’s lesson.
• James’ lesson cannot be scheduled for 12:00 noon or later.
• Hines’ lesson must be scheduled at some time before Xavier’s lesson.
• There must be exactly one lesson scheduled between the lessons of Dunn and Fick.

1.

Which one of the following is an acceptable assignment of students in order from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM?

(A) Green, Xavier, James, Dunn, Hines, Fick
(B) Hines, Xavier, Fick, Green, Dunn, James
(C) James, Green, Hines, Xavier, Fick, Dunn
(D) Green, Hines, James, Dunn, Xavier, Fick
(E) Fick, James, Dunn, Hines, Xavier, Green

2.
Which one of the following is a complete and accurate list of students, any one of whom could be scheduled for the first lesson of the day?

(A) Dunn, James, Xavier
(B) Dunn, Hines, Green
(C) Green, Hines, James
(D) Fick, Hines, James
(E) Green, James, Xavier

3.

If James’ lesson is scheduled for 11:00 AM and Fick’s lesson is scheduled before Dunn’s lesson, then which one of the following must be true?

(A) Hines’ lesson is scheduled for 9:00 AM.
(B) Green’s lesson is scheduled for 10:00 AM.
(C) Xavier’s lesson is scheduled for 12:00 noon.
(D) Dunn’s lesson is scheduled for 12:00 noon.
(E) Fick’s lesson is scheduled for 1:00 PM.

4.

If Hines’ lesson is scheduled immediately before Green’s lesson, then which one of the following could be true?

(A) Xavier’s lesson is scheduled for 9:00 AM.
(B) Dunn’s lesson is scheduled for 9:00 AM.
(C) James’ lesson is scheduled for 10:00 AM.
(D) Xavier’s lesson is scheduled for 10:00 AM.
(E) Green’s lesson is scheduled for 11:00 AM.

5.

If Xavier’s lesson is scheduled before 12:00 noon, then which one of the following must be true?

(A) Hines’ lesson is scheduled for 9:00 AM.

(B) Xavier’s lesson is scheduled for 10:00 AM.
(C) Dunn’s lesson is scheduled for 12:00 noon.
(D) Green’s lesson is scheduled for 1:00 PM.
(E) Fick’s lesson is scheduled for 2:00 PM.

6.

Which one of the following CANNOT be true?

(A) Green’s lesson is scheduled for 9:00 AM.
(B) Green’s lesson is scheduled for 10:00 AM.
(C) Xavier’s lesson is scheduled for 11:00 AM.
(D) Dunn’s lesson is scheduled for 11:00 AM.
(E) Hines’ lesson is scheduled for 12:00 noon.

Here’s the solution fron Get Prepped:

This easy simple line game has six slots, each to be filled by one member. Further simplifying the game, each member is used exactly once. A line game does not get any easier than this. You should combine Rule 1 and Rule 3 to create the chain of H < X < F. Rule 2 is self-explanatory: J cannot be 12:00, 1:00, or 2:00. (Figure 1) Rule 4 is slightly more complex. Rule 4 could be F __ D or it could be D __ F. Now, make warranted conclusions. Start with the chain of H < X < F. Because F must come after both H and X, F cannot be at 9:00 or 10:00. (Figure 1) Similarly, because H must come before both F and X, H cannot be at 1:00 or 2:00. But, H must also come before D, because only one student separates D and F. So, even if the order were D X F, H would have to be before D. So H cannot be at 12:00 either. What about X? X must, at a minimum, be after H and before F, so X cannot be at 9:00 or 2:00. If you still have difficulty seeing how these blocks affect the diagram, use your fingers to measure out the length of the three-letter block, and place your fingers on the diagram to help you visualize how they take up the spaces. Although you may have made other conclusions, the conclusions that are now on the graph are more than adequate to begin answering the questions.

9	10	11	12	1	2
__	__	__	__ J	__ J	__ J
F	F
			H	H	H
X					X

Fig. 1

1. (D) – For this question, you can use the rules to quickly eliminate four of the answer choices.
   (A) This choice violates Rule 3 because it has X before H.
   (B) This choice violates Rule 2 because it has J at 2:00 PM.
   (C) This choice violates Rule 4 because it has F preceding D by only one hour.
   (D) * This choice does not violate any rules.
   (E) This choice violates Rule 1 because it has F before X.

2. (C) – Before checking the answer choices, consider how this question is written. It asks which of the answer choices contains students, any one of whom could be scheduled for the first lesson. So, all you need to do is eliminate one of the three students in an answer choice and you can eliminate the whole answer choice. Look at figure 1 for guidance. We know that neither F nor X can have the first lesson. Three of the answer choices contain either F or X, so we can eliminate those three answer choices. Only answer choices (B) and (C) remain. H and G are in both of these answer choices, so there is no need to check them. You only need to check D and J.

   (A) X cannot be first. (Figure 1) Nor, as it turns out, can D be first.
   (B) D cannot be first, because if it were, then F would have to be third and J would have to be second. This would not leave space for H and X to precede F. You should add this new information to figure 1 for future reference.
   (C) * Any of these three students are possible for the first lesson.
   (D) F cannot be first. (Figure 1)
   (E) X cannot be first. (Figure 1)

3. (A) – Simply create a new diagram with J at 11:00 AM. Now, consider figure 1 and where F and D may be. H and X must precede F, and F must precede D. So, the only place F will fit is 12:00 noon. D is at 2:00 PM. (Figure 2)
   (A) * H must be at 9:00 AM.
   (B) G must be at 1:00 PM.
   (C) X must be at 10:00 AM.
   (D) D must be at 2:00 PM.
   (E) F must be at 12:00 noon.

   9	10	11	12	1	2
   H	X	J	F J	G J	D J
   F	F
   			H	H	H
   X					X
   D

Fig. 2

4. (E) – H is now immediately before G. Add G to the chain of H < X < F to create a longer chain, H G < X < F, F _ D. What is the latest H and G could be? G could be at 10:00 AM, or G could be at 11:00 AM. G cannot be later than 11:00 AM. Quickly diagram these two permutations. (Figures 3a-b) Because J must be before 12:00 noon, the two permutations are easy to diagram.

   (A) X must be at 1:00 PM.
   (B) D must be at 12:00 noon.
   (C) J must be at 11 :00 AM.
   (D) X must be at 1:00 PM.
   (E) * G could be at 11:00 AM.

   9	10	11	12	1	2
   J	H	G	D	X	F

   Fig. 3b

5. (E) – If X is before 12:00 noon, then X can be either 10:00 AM or 11:00 AM. (Figure 1 reminds us that X cannot be 9:00 AM.) The quickest way to solve this question is to graph the permutations for X at 10:00 AM (figure 4a) and at 11:00 AM (figure 4b). In either case, G must be at 1:00 PM; all the other members are not fixed.

(A) H can be 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM.
(B) X can be 10:00 AM or 11:00 PM.
(C) D can be 12:00 noon or 2:00 PM.
(D) * G must be 1:00 PM.
(E) See (C).

9	10	11	12	1	2
H	X	J	F/D	G	F/D

Fig. 4a

9	10	11	12	1	2
J/H	J/H	X	F/D	G	F/D

Fig. 4b

6. (E) Because this question adds no new information, you should be able to answer it using the initial warranted conclusions, as well as any insights you gleaned while answering earlier questions.

   (A) Figure 1 does not show that G cannot be at 9:00 AM, but a little more confirmation would be nice.
   A quick check of the previous correct answer choices—specifically question 1, answer choice (D)—shows that G can be at 9:00 AM.
   (B) Figure 1 does not show that G cannot be at 10:00 AM, but a little more confirmation would be nice.
   A quick check of the work you did for question 4, answer choice (E) shows that G can be at 10:00 AM.
   (C) In question 5, we saw that X can be at 11:00 AM.
   (D) Figure 1 does not show that D cannot be at 11:00 AM, but none of the previous work we did shows that D can be at 11:00 AM. It is a simple matter to graph a permutation where D is at 11:00 AM. For example: H, J, D, X, F, G.
   (E)
   * As we learned while making the warranted conclusions, H cannot be at 12:00 noon. (Figure 1)

These questions are provided by Get Prepped! Get Prepped offers affordable LSAT prep, exclusively teaches the LSAT and offers tutoring, live classes, and video classes. These questions are from Get Prepped’s Ace the LSAT Logic Games.

This simulated LSAT question has been provided by Blueprint LSAT Prep.  Because LSAC rules prohibit the use of actual LSAT questions on the internet, this question has been written by Blueprint founder Trent Teti and tests a type of argument that frequently appears on the LSAT.  This week’s installment:  The fallacy of exclusivity.

The question

Some farmers have earned a very comfortable living by raising pigs, while relying on chickens has also been proven to be a way to turn an agrarian profit.  Herbert, who owns a small livestock ranch in the Ohio river valley, owns neither pigs nor chickens.  His farm is therefore doomed to be a profitless venture, at least with regard to livestock.  

 The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it:

(A) fails to define the word “livestock” adequately

(B) takes for granted that a farmer can make money by raising pigs

(C) relies on questionable information regarding the Ohio river valley

(D) treats some means for profit for as through they are the only means

(E)  inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts

 What to do

Read the prompt, first. At Blueprint, we label this type of question a “flaw” question because you’re searching for the flaw in the argument.  Reading the prompt first and classifying it lets you know what you’re looking for in the stimulus.  In this instance, we know we’re dealing with a flawed argument, so you should actively search for the conclusion and premises in the argument, as well as keeping an eye out for the flaw being committed.

Conclusion and premises

In this case, the conclusion is that Herbert’s farm will not turn a profit.  The premises, or support, for the argument is that some farmers make a profit from raising pigs, while others make a profit from raising chickens and that Herbert’s farm does neither of these.  Poor Herbert.  Not only does he live in Ohio, he’s been relegated to a life of poverty.  Or has he?

 Evaluating the argument

While it’s true that Herbert doesn’t own pigs or chickens, that doesn’t necessarily doom him to penury.  Herbert could raise goats or perhaps the exotic chinchilla, and make money by doing so.  We’ve also heard that worm farming has been all the rage lately…

 The fallacy of exclusivity

This flaw is known as the fallacy of exclusivity and it crops up fairly often on the LSAT.  Whenever an argument on the LSAT presents a limited number of options, you must ascertain that the options are exhaustive (no other options are available), and exclusive (multiple options can’t be chosen together).  In the case of our boy Herbert, the argument failed to meet the criteria of being exhaustive.  It posited that only pigs and chickens can make a livestock farmer money, when in fact there are a bewildering variety of animals that could be raised to turn a profit.

One might also see this a confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions, since even if pig and chicken farming might be sufficient to turn a profit, they are not necessarily the only means of doing so.

 The answer choices

 (D) is the correct answer because it points out that there are ways for Herbert to make money on his farm..  (A) is incorrect because, while livestock isn’t defined, it’s not a flaw in the argument.  (B) is incorrect because the argument provides us with some support for the claim that some farmers make money raising pigs.  (C) is incorrect because the argument doesn’t rely on questionable information about the Ohio river valley.  (E) is incorrect because the farmers cited in the argument are appropriate sources of information.

Simulated LSAT question by Blueprint founder Trent Teti.  Blueprint offers live LSAT classes and it’s newest online prep course Blueprint: The Movie 2.0.