LSAT 106 – Section 1 – Question 20

LSAT 106 - Section 1 - Question 20

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 2:08

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT106 S1 Q20
+LR
Must be false +MBF
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
37%
170
B
8%
162
C
18%
166
D
19%
165
E
19%
166
162
174
180
 +Hardest 152.148 +SubsectionHarder

This is a pretty tough question.

I'll try to explain why (A) is correct with an analogy because I don't want to spoon feed you the answer. You should work through it.

Here's the analogous passage:

(P1) If it's sunny, we go camping. S-->C
(P2) If we go camping, we make a bonfire. C-->B
(P3) We did not make a bonfire. /B

We can conclude a couple of things.

(C1) If we didn't make a bonfire, then it wasn't sunny. /B-->/S

Note that this conclusion is made using P1 and P2 ONLY. We did NOT use P3.

Using P3, we get to draw the conclusion (C2) it wasn't sunny. /S

The contradiction of C1 is different from the contradiction of C2.

Contradicting C1, we get /B and S.

But, let's say we drew the conclusion C2. Now we have two true statements in our hands. P3 and C2. /B and /S. Contradicting that, we get /B-->S.

That's what (A) says.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply