medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The senator argues that we should increase funding for public schools. However, the senator has been caught lying about their own education. Therefore, we should not increase funding for public schools.
The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
- The scientist claims that global temperatures are rising, but the scientist's data have been shown to be incomplete. Therefore, we should doubt the claim.
- My opponent says we need higher taxes, but my opponent simply wants to squander our money on wasteful projects. Thus, we should reject higher taxes.
- The witness said the car was red, but the witness was not wearing their glasses. Therefore, the witness's testimony is unreliable.
- The doctor recommends that I quit smoking, but the doctor smokes a pack a day. Therefore, the doctor's recommendation can be dismissed.
- The senator's school-funding proposal has been endorsed by three universities. Therefore, the proposal is sound and we should adopt it.
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