LSAT PrepTest 43 Section 2 Question 22 Explanation | Logical Reasoning

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

***


Here's a Logical Reasoning question from the June 2004 LSAT.

A chain of phrases should help here (remember, this is done with underlining on real tests):

All parrots speak --> different pleasantness --> some Australians good --> Usually affection if raised from early on

We can't pre-phrase here, so let's jump into the choices:

A) Correct. The arguments says all parrots can learn to speak (at least a little), and that some Australian parrots have sweet tempers. Those parrots can surely learn to speak, so at least some parrots that can learn to speak are sweet tempered.

B) Out of scope because the argument never addresses this. It says that some Australian ones are good and that most hand-fed ones are too, but it never says that if a parrot is not the former, it must be the latter to be good tempered. Maybe this is so, maybe not. But the argument doesn't say.

C) Out of scope since the argument doesn't address which parrots are sweetest tempered. It says only that Australian ones are sometimes sweet tempered.

D) The opposite of what we want, since the argument directly contradicts this. It says that almost parrots are affectionate to a person who hand-fed them from birth (which is about the same thing as sweet tempered...the two terms are used interchangeably here). All of them can learn to speak (since all parrots can). And, the argument doesn't say all of the chicks hand-fed from birth are Australian. So, they're are bound to be some non-Australian, sweet tempered parrots who can learn to speak.

E) The opposite of what we want because the argument contradicts it, saying that some Australian birds are sweet tempered, not all.

Remember:

1) Use a chain of phrases and don't worry if you cannot pre-phrase (we couldn't here because many things might be true as a result of the argument).

2) Eliminate choices that are the opposite of what we're looking for (in this case, choices that are contradicted by the argument instead of having to be true because of the argument) and ones that are out of scope (if the passage doesn't address them, they aren't required by the passage's statements).