medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every reduced-visit study uses sensors or diaries. No diary study enrolls minors. Study R enrolls minors. Therefore, Study R uses sensors.
The argument is flawed because it
- treats a necessary condition for sensor use as sufficient
- assumes without justification that sensors and diaries can never be used together
- never establishes that Study R is a reduced-visit study to which the sensors-or-diaries rule applies
- overlooks that enrolling minors proves Study R uses diaries
- presumes that every study enrolling adults relies exclusively on participant diaries rather than sensors, regardless of whether the study reduces the number of in-person visits
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?