LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 2, Question 22
Identify the RoleArgument structure
Being at home is not required for being in one's own house.
One can be in their own house but not at home. For example, if one owns a house but rents it out to other people.
Explanation
This is worded in a very complicated way. I had to read the stimulus 3 times to get a good understanding of what it means.
The conclusion is that you can be in a house that belongs to you without being at home. This is proven by the second sentence, which gives an example where someone owns a house but rents it out to other people. So if the owner goes to that house they would be in their own house, but not at home, because they live somewhere else.
So how does the first sentence, the claim in the question stem, factor in? The first sentence says you can be at home, but not in your house. That seems reasonable, you could be in your yard. But this statement isn't relevant to the conclusion, which said you can be in your own house but not at home. The first sentence and the conclusion are 2 completely different scenarios. The first sentence doesn't help support that you can be in your own house without being at home.
The claim in the question stem doesn't support the conclusion, it's just there. It doesn't factor in to the argument.
Answer choices
This indicates that the claim is important evidence. But it's not. It described a situation (being at home without being in your own house) that doesn't tell us anything about the conclusion (being in your own house without being at home).
No, the conclusion doesn't say that the first sentence isn't true. They talk about unrelated scenarios.
This is true. The first sentence is unrelated to the conclusion. So whether the conclusion is true or false, the first sentence could still be true.
No ambiguity in the word "home" is pointed out in the stimulus, it's only used to describe someone's house and property.
Even if you were tempted by this answer you can eliminate it because it doesn't describe the relationship between the first sentence and the conclusion, which is what the question asks about. The answer should just say that the statements are unrelated.
The claim doesn't contradict the conclusion, it's talking about a completely different situation than the conclusion is. Both statements can be true.