medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every time the local professional basketball team wears their blue jerseys, they win their game. Consequently, if the team wants to ensure a victory tomorrow night, they must wear their blue jerseys.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
- Treats a condition shown to be sufficient for winning as though it were also required for winning.
- Infers from a recurring link between blue jerseys and wins that the jerseys themselves cause the victories.
- Bases its conclusion on a set of past games far too unrepresentative to support a prediction.
- Reaches a conclusion about guaranteeing victory that differs from the question the evidence addresses.
- Assumes that wearing the blue jerseys tomorrow is, by itself, enough to make a win certain.
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