medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A rule states: if you are 18, you can vote. A particular person is 21. It is concluded that this person can vote.
Strictly on the basis of the rule as stated, is this inference valid?
- Yes, this is a textbook instance of modus ponens applied to the stated age rule.
- No, because being 21 fails to match the exact triggering condition the rule specifies.
- Yes, because 21 is plainly greater than 18 and so comfortably clears the rule's threshold.
- No, because the rule was almost certainly intended to set a minimum voting age rather than an exact one.
- No, since no rule keyed to a single fixed age can ever speak to a person's voting eligibility.
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