easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A business consultant argues that Company X must upgrade its servers. Just as an aging athlete requires more recovery time and specialized equipment to maintain performance, an aging server network requires hardware upgrades to handle modern data loads.
The consultant's argument proceeds by
- transferring a familiar pattern from one domain to a structurally similar case in order to back a recommendation.
- marshaling detailed statistics on the documented failure rates of older equipment in order to justify replacing it now.
- presenting a single decisive instance that refutes a sweeping claim about how long a given technology can reliably last.
- casting doubt on the basic competence of the technical staff charged with maintaining the server network.
- establishing a strict, exceptionless cause-and-effect law tying equipment age directly to inevitable breakdown.
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