medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A firm's policy holds that any applicant with more than ten years of experience is automatically granted an interview. Sarah was granted an interview. The hiring committee therefore concludes that Sarah must have more than ten years of experience.
The committee's reasoning is flawed because it:
- mistakes a condition that is sufficient to produce an outcome for one that is required in order to produce it.
- treats a claim about a group as though it had to hold for each individual member of that group.
- improperly denies the antecedent of the policy's conditional statement.
- neglects to confirm that Sarah's experience lies in a field relevant to the position she sought.
- assumes that no applicant could ever be granted an interview for any reason whatsoever.
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?