easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A journalist writes: 'No honest politician accepts bribes. Representative Smith has never accepted a bribe. So Representative Smith is clearly an honest politician.'
The journalist's reasoning is flawed because it
- fails to pin down the meaning of the term 'bribe' precisely enough to permit any fully objective judgment here
- criticizes Representative Smith's personal character rather than engaging the substance of the representative's arguments
- generalizes about all politicians from a sample that consists of just one particular elected individual, Smith
- treats a condition required for being an honest politician as though meeting it were enough to guarantee honesty
- assumes that every politician who consistently refuses bribes must be dishonest in some other identifiable respect
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