medium · 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, as a general matter, an unreliable observer of events in traffic.
- the accident may have involved vehicles other than the blue sedan.
- some of those who saw the accident may have been mistaken about the sedan's color.
- James may have been too far away to read the 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 is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- 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?