LSAT 113 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: An overwhelming number of industry’s chief executive of…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Greta Harris must be a rich CEO.

REASONING: Most rich CEOs went to prestigious business schools. Greta went to a prestigious business school.

ANALYSIS: Most Xs are Ys does not mean that all Ys are Xs.

Or if I say that most pets are fish (true, people have lots of fish), that does not mean that all fish are pets.

The number of rich CEOs is very small and the number of people who get MBAs from fancy schools is fairly large.

The argument reversed a “most statement”, and also took it as an absolute statement.

___________

1. This is a bad argument because people don’t always get the problems “associated” with their profession. But it doesn’t make an error about reversing a most statement. 
2. This doesn’t have to be true. Otto could make a great career as “the opera singer who never practices.” This doesn’t make the error of reversing a most statement though.
3. Not quite. This is a bad argument. It could be that Italians are good singers but hate listening to opera. But it doesn’t reverse a most statement.
4. This is a bad argument because it doesn’t establish that bent nails actually cause good luck. But this argument doesn’t reverse a most statement.
5. CORRECT. Lots of opera singers know languages. But there aren’t very many opera singers and many more people know languages. So it doesn’t have to be true that anyone who knows languages is an opera singer.