Free Sample LSAT Logical Reasoning Question

I didn't write the following blog post. It was already on the blog when I took over the URL. The following blog post may contain mistakes. -Steve

***


This is the first post in my new LSAT blog, which will cover Analytical Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension. I will post a new question and solution each day.

Please leave comments to ask follow-up/clarification questions, point out another way to solve a given question, request that I solve a certain question, or ask anything about the LSAT.

Question 1, Logical Reasoning:

In addition to the labor and raw materials used to make a house, the reputation of the architect of the house plays a role in determining the price of the house once it is completed. Thus, an expensive house is not always a good house.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The price of a house should reflect its quality.

B) Price never accurately indicates the quality of a house.

C) An architect's reputation is not always indicative of the quality of the house.

D) The reputation of the architect usually plays a more important role than the quality of the building materials in deciding a home's price.

E) Houses made by less-known architects are usually priced to accurately reflect the quality of the house.

To answer Logical Reasoning questions, you need to understand the way the argument progresses. The main argument in this passage is:

"Price of the house = labor + raw materials + reputation of the architect."

This is just saying that there are three elements that determine the price of the house. From this fact, this passage deduces (the symbol means "not equal to"):

"So, expensive house ≠ good house."

Now that we know what the passage is arguing, we can find out what needs to be assumed in order for that argument to be correct, which is what the question is asking us to do. Pre-phrasing an answer is a great way to avoid wasting time slowly reading through all the answer choices, 4 of which are of course wrong, to find the one right answer.

So, what would need to be assumed to make the argument work? If the architect's good reputation can make the house expensive (since it's one of the three elements that influence the house's price), and expensive doesn't mean good, the architect's good reputation cannot mean it's necessarily a good house. How do we know this is true? Well, if the architect's good reputation did necessarily mean the house is good, the argument's conclusion that "an expensive house is not always a good house" would not follow. So the argument depends on the assumption that an architect's good reputation doesn't necessarily mean that the house is necessarily good.

Which answer choice fits with that pre-phrasing? Choice C does, which says that reputation is not indicative of quality, just like we were saying in our pre-phrasing. Since this is preparation and we have time, though, let's see why the other answers are wrong:

A) This is outside of the scope of the argument. The argument never says anything about what "should" be, whether price "should" be indicative of quality. Instead, it just says that price isn't always indicative of quality.

B) This can't be right because it contradicts the argument's conclusion that "an expensive house is not always a good house." This statement says that an expensive house is never a good house, which is not at all what the argument is saying. The argument says only that an expensive house need not be good, not that it is never good.

C) Correct.

D) Again, beyond the argument's scope. It says only that there are 3 elements that determine the price of the house. The argument does not say which elements, if any, are more important than others.

E) Once more, outside the argument's scope. It does not say anything about lesser-known architects in particular, but rather addresses just the abstract concept of the "reputation" of the architect.

Remember:

1) Find out how the argument progresses, as we did here. Maybe even write out a word or two on your paper, or make a quick flow-chart, to show how the logic works. Logic is the key to this entire test.

2) Pre-phrase the answer (get a rough idea of what a correct answer would be...it need not be written down, necessarily), so you know what to look for in the answer choices.

3) Watch out for answer choices that are beyond the scope of the argument. If the argument does not address it, it isn't the right answer.

4) Watch out for answer choices that contradict the conclusion of the argument. They cannot be assumptions necessary for the argument to make sense, considering that they contradict the argument.

These assumption questions are among the most common in the LSAT Logical Reasoning sections, and since there are 2 of these among the tests 4 graded sections (one is experimental and not graded) and only 1 section each of Analytical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, it is an important question-type to learn.