medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Naturalist: A salamander species can persist in a stream only if the water there stays cool year-round. The water in Ridgeline Creek does stay cool year-round. The naturalist concludes that this salamander species can therefore persist in Ridgeline Creek.
The naturalist's reasoning is flawed because it
- treats a condition that the salamander's survival merely requires as though meeting it were enough to ensure that survival
- draws a conclusion about one particular stream from observations made about streams in general
- fails to establish that no other salamander species could also live in Ridgeline Creek
- assumes that cool water is the only environmental factor that any stream-dwelling animal needs
- overlooks the possibility that the water in Ridgeline Creek does not in fact remain cool throughout the year
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?