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 made about a group as though it had to hold true of each individual member taken on its own.
- improperly denies the antecedent of the conditional policy and so draws an unwarranted negative conclusion.
- neglects to confirm that Sarah's decade of experience lies in a field relevant to the position she sought here.
- assumes that no applicant lacking the stated experience could ever be granted an interview for any reason at all.
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