LSAT - Law School Admission Principle and Parallel Reasoning Questions and Answers

Question 1

A city ordinance states that it is illegal to operate a food truck within 500 feet of any brick-and-mortar restaurant. The reasoning is to prevent unfair competition for established businesses that pay property taxes. A new gourmet ice cream truck is fined for operating 400 feet from a pizzeria. Which of the following principles would most strongly justify the city's action?

Accepted Answer

All businesses, regardless of their specific product, that sell food are considered competitors under the law.

Answer

The core of the issue is whether an ice cream truck is a 'competitor' to a pizzeria in the eyes of the ordinance. The principle in answer B provides the necessary link: if all businesses selling food are considered competitors, then the ordinance justifiably applies to the ice cream truck, regardless of the difference in their primary offerings. This principle directly supports the city's application of the rule.

Question 2

Argument: 'Every time I've eaten at The Golden Spoon, the service has been excellent. Therefore, the next time I eat there, the service will be excellent.' The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to which of the following?

Accepted Answer

This stock has decreased in value for the past three days. Therefore, it will continue to decrease tomorrow.

Answer

The original argument makes a prediction about a single future event based on a consistent pattern of past experiences (inductive reasoning). Answer C mirrors this structure perfectly: a pattern of a stock decreasing for a few days is used to predict the same outcome for the next single instance (tomorrow). Answer A makes a universal claim ('all swans'), not a prediction about a single next event. Answer B is similar but relies on an extremely large and reliable dataset, making the inference much stronger than the original. Answer D relies on a rating or guarantee, not a pattern of personal observation.

Question 3

Principle: A person is morally obligated to fulfill a promise only if the promise was not made under duress. Which of the following situations best conforms to this principle?

Accepted Answer

David promised to pay for a broken window after his neighbor threatened to sue him. David is not morally obligated to pay.

Answer

This answer directly applies the principle. The threat of a lawsuit constitutes duress. According to the principle, a promise made under duress does not create a moral obligation. Therefore, David is not morally obligated to pay, which perfectly aligns with the stated principle. The other options introduce different ethical considerations not covered by the specific principle.

Question 4

A law professor states: 'To be a successful lawyer, one must be both diligent and articulate. Julia is very diligent, but she is not articulate. Therefore, Julia will not be a successful lawyer.' Which of the following arguments has a logical structure that is most parallel to the professor's argument?

Accepted Answer

To bake a good cake, you need flour and sugar. This recipe uses flour, but not sugar. Therefore, this recipe will not produce a good cake.

Answer

The original argument's structure is: To achieve X, one needs A AND B. Person P has A, but not B. Therefore, Person P will not achieve X. Answer A perfectly mirrors this structure: To achieve a good cake (X), you need flour (A) AND sugar (B). This recipe has flour (A), but not sugar (B). Therefore, this recipe will not produce a good cake (X). The other options represent different logical forms, such as 'or' conditions, affirming the antecedent, and denying the antecedent.

Question 5

A company policy states that employees who have been with the company for over ten years are entitled to an additional week of vacation. Mark has been with the company for twelve years but was denied the extra week because he recently switched from a part-time to a full-time role. The company's action is based on a principle that could be stated as which of the following?

Accepted Answer

Only full-time employment counts toward the ten-year service requirement.

Answer

The company acknowledges Mark's 12 years of association but denies the benefit. The most direct justification for this is an underlying principle that not all of his 12 years are 'qualifying' years. The principle that only full-time employment counts would explain why his recent switch is relevant and why his tenure, despite its length, doesn't meet the requirement for the benefit. The other answers are either contradicted by the scenario or introduce irrelevant ideas.

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT - Law School Admission Principle and Parallel Reasoning Questions and Answers