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 was a professional athlete for many years before retiring.
- Thompson is a professional athlete who has been accused of using banned substances.
- Some athletes who are eligible for the Hall of Fame have never used banned substances.
- 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 eligible for the Hall of Fame has ever used banned substances.
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?