easy · 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 this one particular stream from observations that were instead made about streams in general
- fails to establish that no other salamander species could also manage to persist within the cool waters of Ridgeline Creek
- assumes that cool water is the sole environmental factor that any stream-dwelling animal needs in order to keep on surviving
- overlooks the possibility that the water in Ridgeline Creek does not in fact stay genuinely cool all throughout the year
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