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.
- Concludes from a recurring association between blue jerseys and wins that the jerseys themselves bring about the victories.
- Bases its conclusion on a set of past games too unrepresentative to support any prediction about the team.
- Reaches a conclusion about guaranteeing victory that differs from the question the evidence was meant to address.
- Assumes that wearing the blue jerseys tomorrow is enough, by itself, to make a win absolutely certain.
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?