medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
No professional athlete who eats junk food can maintain peak physical condition. Sarah is a professional athlete who does not eat junk food. Therefore, Sarah must be in peak physical condition.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
- No car with an empty gas tank can start. This car's tank is full. Therefore, this car must start
- Most cats are independent. Whiskers is a cat. Therefore, Whiskers is independent
- All successful businesses have efficient managers. This business is successful. Therefore, it has an efficient manager
- Only licensed contractors may bid on city projects. James is a licensed contractor. Therefore, James will bid on the project
- Every athlete who trains daily stays in peak condition. Sarah trains daily. Therefore, Sarah is in peak condition
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 these statements?
- 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?