hard · LSAT
A tech company claims: Every software engineer at our firm is highly skilled in Python. Since James is a software engineer at our firm, he must be the one who wrote the script for our new security update, and because he is highly skilled, the script must be free of all errors.
Which one of the following most accurately identifies two flaws in the claim?
- It takes James's possession of a shared group skill as proof that he performed one particular task, and it treats high skill as a guarantee against any error.
- It commits a fallacy of division, and it mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient one.
- It uses an ambiguous term, and it relies on an appeal to authority.
- It confuses correlation with causation, and it presents a false dichotomy.
- It overlooks that other engineers could also write Python, and it ignores that security updates require testing.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?