medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A restaurant critic claims that most of the meals at the Bistro are overpriced. Suppose the critic's claim is true.
On that supposition, what is the logical status of the claim that some of the meals at the Bistro are not overpriced?
- Its truth is left open, since the critic's claim is compatible with both its truth and its falsity.
- It is, given the truth of the critic's claim, thereby guaranteed to be true as well in every case.
- It is, given the truth of the critic's claim, thereby guaranteed to be outright false in every case.
- It is, as it turns out, simply logically equivalent to the restaurant critic's original claim itself.
- It cannot be evaluated at all, because the critic's claim is far too vague to bear any truth value.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- 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?
- 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?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?