medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
To be eligible for the senior discount at the museum, a visitor must be at least sixty-five years old. Marcus is sixty-seven years old. Therefore, Marcus is eligible for the senior discount.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because it
- treats a requirement that merely has to be met as though satisfying it alone settled the matter
- mistakes a mere sequence of events occurring in time for a relationship of cause and effect
- assumes without warrant that everyone past the stated age threshold wants to claim the discount
- overlooks the chance that some visitors younger than sixty-five might still qualify for the discount
- relies on Marcus's stated exact age even though only an approximate age was ever established
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