Q6 - If one is to participate in the regional band

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Band → Practice hard or Talent
Lily: Band + Talent
Therefore, Lily doesn't practice hard

Answer Anticipation:
As soon as I see conditional logic in a Flaw question, I assume that's where the argument is going to go wrong. Here, the argument messes up what "or" means. On the LSAT, "or" is inclusive, meaning that both parts of the statement could be true. In this argument, however, the author treats it as if having one of those necessary conditions precludes the other. That's a flaw, so I'm going to be on the lookout for answers that have an "or" necessary condition set, give one, and conclude the other is missing.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Premise mismatch. The conditional premise doesn't have an "or".

(B) Wrong flaw (illegal negation). The flaw in this argument is that it negates the sufficient condition (being on vacation) and uses that to prove the negation of the necessary condition - classic negation!

(C) Premise mismatch. Tricky though! The necessary condition of the premise is an "and" statement, not an "or" statement (be careful - neither/nor is "and", not "or").

(D) Bingo. All the pieces match up.

(E) Premise mistmatch. Since we don't get a premise stating that Wayne did, in fact, get a ride home, we're missing a term that's important to the flaw. The argument also negates one of the conditions and concludes the other, which is the opposite of the given argument. If this answer told us that Wayne did get a ride home, we'd have a valid argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
If you see conditional logic in an ID the Flaw or Matching question, jump for joy! You've identified the most likely error in reasoning, and an easy way to structure your approach to the answers. Now, you just have to get good at conditional reasoning (hint: we have flashcards in your student center).

#officialexplanation