hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
If a manuscript is accepted by the editorial board, then it has passed peer review. Manuscript X has passed peer review. Some board members argue that manuscript X was therefore accepted by the editorial board, but this argument is no worse than the board's standard practice, since the board itself often infers acceptance from peer-review status alone.
The argument in defense of the board members' inference is flawed because it
- fails to establish that the editorial board's practice is governed by any formally adopted procedural rule
- takes for granted that passing peer review is not just necessary but also sufficient for acceptance
- defends a flawed inference by noting that this same flawed inference is commonly made elsewhere too
- presumes that peer review and editorial acceptance are, in every context, one and the same process
- overlooks the possibility that manuscript X was already rejected for reasons unrelated to peer review
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?