medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
No professional athlete who uses banned substances is eligible for the Hall of Fame. Since Thompson is ineligible for the Hall of Fame, it follows that Thompson must have used a banned substance.
The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
- Thompson competed professionally for many years across numerous full seasons before finally retiring from the sport.
- Thompson is a professional athlete who has repeatedly been publicly accused of using banned performance substances.
- Some athletes who remain fully eligible for the Hall of Fame have never even once used any banned substance whatsoever.
- Using banned substances is the sole basis on which a professional athlete can be ruled ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
- No professional athlete who is currently eligible for the Hall of Fame has ever once used any banned substance.
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