LSAT: Logical Reasoning

Since at least one report was reviewed by the auditor and the treasurer reviews no report that the auditor reviews, at least one report was not reviewed by the treasurer (A). B is not implied; others besides the treasurer might review. C contradicts the possibility the treasurer reviewed non-auditor reports. D contradicts exclusivity. E is unsupported.

If consumers view plastic labeled “recyclable” as eco-friendly, then choosing plastic is consistent with their stated preference, resolving the tension (A). B and C concern production and display, not consumer perception. D and E are irrelevant to the choice between two packages at equal prices.

Chemists must wear goggles, and anyone wearing goggles is barred from the clean room. Therefore, no chemists are permitted in the clean room (C). A contradicts the logic. B is too strong: others might be allowed if they are not wearing goggles. D and E are unsupported.

To judge whether the program can save $1 million via reduced sick days, one needs to know the baseline sick days from targeted conditions (B). A, C, and E do not bear directly on savings via sick-day reduction. D is tangential and does not quantify potential impact.

By identifying sleep as a plausible confound that could explain higher recall, the neuroscientist shows the evidence does not isolate the supplement’s effect (C). A and B do not describe the move. D mischaracterizes the response, which accepts the test but questions causation. E claims more than is argued.

The principle in B directly supports dismissing a penalty for an unavoidable action. A would oppose dismissal. C implies strict responsibility and weakens the decision. D is general and does not address unavoidable circumstances. E changes the standard to harm-caused, which is not the judge’s stated basis.

If total operating costs for EVs fell relative to gas cars due to tax incentives and higher gas prices, rising electricity prices can coincide with higher EV sales (B). A, C, and D do not directly reconcile the cost discrepancy. E would tend to reduce EV sales, not explain an increase.

B offers a plausible alternative cause for cleaner parks, weakening the causal inference. A could support the fines’ impact. C is unrelated. D does not show that fines did not cause cleanliness. E is irrelevant to whether the fines caused cleanliness locally.

Random assignment and a control group support a causal link from meditation to improved sleep (B). A suggests reverse causation and weakens. C and D are irrelevant. E undermines the reliability of the evidence rather than strengthening causation.

The teacher affirms that the policy will improve learning; the counselor denies it. That is a direct point of disagreement (A). B is asserted only by the counselor. C, D, and E are not addressed by both speakers.

The original concludes existence of a non-remote employee without establishing that any engineers exist. C mirrors this by concluding some non–drought-tolerant plants without establishing that any perennials exist. A and D are valid. B commits a different flaw (undistributed middle). E makes an unwarranted universal generalization unlike the original flaw.

If all Lema’s books exceed 500 pages and no book in the branch exceeds that length, then none of Lema’s books are in the branch (A). B is speculative. C and D are unsupported. E contradicts the premise that all of Lema’s books are over 500 pages.

The conditional says suffering occurs if traffic is reduced unless exemptions are granted. Assuming exemptions are granted (A) blocks suffering even if traffic drops, making the conclusion valid. B actually triggers the risk of suffering. C, D, and E are not logically connected to the unless-clause structure and do not guarantee the conclusion.

The conclusion specifies a 30 percent decrease; thus the price increase must be large enough to produce that magnitude of demand reduction (C). A and B are not required for the price effect to occur. D runs counter to the mechanism (switching to reusables would help the reduction) and is not required. E concerns future lawmaking and is unnecessary for the prediction.

The argument assumes providing free coffee will increase caffeine intake and thus productivity. If intake would not increase (B), the predicted productivity boost is undermined. A is irrelevant preference data. C at most suggests limited benefit but does not show no productivity increase overall. D is a cost comparison, not about productivity. E is irrelevant to whether productivity rises.

The argument relies on popularity rather than evidence to establish truth. B is not supported; no sample size is given. C may be a weakness but not the core flaw. D and E introduce issues not indicated by the stimulus.

The structure is a disjunction: either the antecedent did not occur or another cause produced the observed outcome. A supplies the necessary alternative cause. B and E are potential examples but not logically required as the needed disjunct. C and D are irrelevant to congestion.

Both arguments treat a failure to detect as proof that the phenomenon is absent. A is affirming the consequent. C is valid reasoning. D overgeneralizes but not via lack of detection. E criticizes generalizability, not concluding absence from non-detection.

The advocate claims a substantial reduction; the merchant denies a significant reduction, so they disagree on A. The advocate does not address subsidies, factory compliance, business harm, or public support, so B, C, D, and E are not established points of disagreement.

Given that funded proposals must be carefully written or meticulously researched, and that color-photo proposals are not carefully written, we must also rule out their being meticulously researched to conclude none were funded. A supplies exactly that. B contradicts the first premise. C and E are insufficient. D contradicts the needed condition.

A identifies an alternative cause fully accounting for the observed effect, undermining the causal inference to the cereal. B raises a concern but is not as directly damaging. C and E are irrelevant. D subtly supports the claim rather than weakening it.

C directly condemns firing an employee for lawful, off-duty political speech that does not affect job performance. A supports the firm. B provides a condition for discipline that is not met here. D concerns on-premises speech, not off-duty conduct. E is a general social norm, not a principle governing employer actions.

If enforcement decreased, fewer fines could reflect reduced policing rather than reduced littering. B is comparative and indirect. C and D may matter but do not directly address the issuance of fines versus incidence. E is irrelevant to the causal claim.

The salt examples are evidence used to attack the chef’s broad health claim by pointing to contrary cases. A misidentifies the conclusion. C suggests the critic rejects the premise, which is false. D is wrong because the statement is relied upon. E mischaracterizes its function.

The stimulus commits the inverse error: from If P then Q, infers Not P therefore Not Q. C mirrors that structure. A and B are valid modus tollens. D is affirming the consequent. E is valid modus tollens.

Since some attorneys are consultants and no consultant is a partner, those consultant-attorneys are not partners, so some attorneys are not partners. B need not be true; there could be zero partners or partners outside the set of attorneys. C need not be true; some attorneys could be partners. D contradicts the premises when combined with the possibility of attorney-partners. E is not supported; nothing links consultants to the board.

To increase attendance, people deterred by daytime conflicts must be able to come at night. If they also cannot attend evenings, attendance would not rise. A concerns time spent, not attendance counts. B may help but is not strictly required. D and E are about exhibits or finances, not the attendance claim.

A directly neutralizes the opponents’ disposal-harm objection by preventing cadmium release, allowing emissions reductions to be an unopposed benefit. B is supportive but more indirect. C could help, but without a guarantee of proper handling it still leaves the cadmium concern. D is irrelevant to environmental harm. E makes emissions savings larger but does not address the disposal claim.

The conclusion treats a correlation as if it established causation. If higher-risk individuals avoid coffee, the coffee group could appear healthier without coffee being preventive. B is speculative about funding. C is irrelevant to the causal claim. D raises a composition issue not present. E introduces equivocation not evidenced in the stimulus.