easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every person who witnessed the accident reported seeing a blue sedan speeding through the intersection. Because James was in the vicinity of the accident at the time it occurred, he must have seen the blue sedan as well.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because it fails to consider the possibility that
- being nearby when the accident happened does not establish that James actually observed it.
- James is, by reputation, an inattentive and generally unreliable observer of moving traffic.
- the accident itself may well have involved one or more vehicles other than the blue sedan.
- some of those who genuinely saw the accident may have been mistaken about the sedan's color.
- James may have stood too far from the scene to read the speeding sedan's license plate.
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