easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The film critic's claim that the director's latest movie is a masterpiece is clearly mistaken. The critic is a close personal friend of the director and has repeatedly praised the director's earlier, decidedly mediocre films.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- dismisses a claim purely by impugning the impartiality of the person who advanced it
- draws an analogy between two art forms that are not relevantly similar
- assumes that a person's past judgments must always match their present ones
- neglects to specify what features a film must have to count as a masterpiece
- treats one critic's praise of mediocre films as proof that all critics are unreliable
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