Large language models (LLMs) achieve superhuman performance on complex reasoning tasks, yet often fail on much simpler problems, raising concerns about their reliability and interpretability. We investigate this paradox through a focused study with two key design features: simplicity, to expose basic failure modes, and scale, to enable comprehensive controlled experiments. We focus on set membership queries -- among the most fundamental forms of reasoning -- using tasks like ``Is apple an element of the set \{pear, plum, apple, raspberry\}?''. We conduct a systematic empirical evaluation across prompt phrasing, semantic structure, element ordering, and model choice. Our large-scale analysis reveals that LLM performance on this elementary task is consistently brittle, and unpredictable across all dimensions, suggesting that the models' ``understanding'' of the set concept is fragmented and convoluted at best. Our work demonstrates that the large-scale experiments enabled by the simplicity of the problem allow us to map and analyze the failure modes comprehensively, making this approach a valuable methodology for LLM evaluation in general.