easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A critic argues that the university's new curriculum is a failure because it emphasizes vocational training over classical liberal arts. However, the critic's argument should be dismissed because the critic themselves attended a university known for its extensive vocational programs and has a career in a highly technical field.
The argument's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- discredits the critic by appealing to the critic's own schooling and career instead of engaging the critic's actual point.
- presumes, without offering any support, that vocational training and a liberal arts education cannot ever coexist in one curriculum.
- offers no evidence at all that vocational training does in fact lead graduates to successful and rewarding professional careers.
- mistakes a condition that would be sufficient to guarantee a student's success for one that is merely required to attain it.
- rests on a sample of comparable universities far too small to support any broad generalization about curriculum design.
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