easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A political analyst argues: "Every successful revolution in history has been preceded by a period of economic instability. Our country is currently undergoing economic instability; therefore, a successful revolution is inevitable."
The analyst's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- draws on a relatively small sample of past historical revolutions that is unlikely to be representative of all the relevant cases
- mistakes a condition that merely has to be present for an outcome for one that is enough by itself to bring the outcome about
- neglects to state with any real precision what is to count here, in the relevant sense, as a 'successful revolution'
- assumes that periods of economic instability are, in very nearly every case, the direct product of government corruption
- presumes that any country now experiencing economic instability is thereby doomed to political collapse of some kind
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