medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A sign reads: only members can enter the lounge. David entered the lounge.
Is the conclusion that David is a member valid?
- No, because the inference affirms the consequent by reading the lounge entry rule backward here.
- Yes, because entering the lounge requires the very status of membership the sign makes a precondition.
- Yes, because it is a valid modus tollens that denies the consequent to reach the membership conclusion.
- No, because the inference denies the antecedent by starting from David's supposed lack of membership.
- Yes, but only on the further assumption that the lounge's membership rolls are perfectly enforced daily.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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