medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Either the outage was caused by a power surge or by a cut cable. Investigators determined it was not caused by a power surge. Therefore, it was caused by a cut cable.
The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled in which one of the following?
- Either the recipe calls for butter or for oil. It calls for butter. Therefore, it does not call for oil.
- Either the error is in the formula or in the data entry. Analysts found it is not in the formula. Therefore, it is in the data entry.
- Either the key is in the drawer or in the safe. It is not in the drawer. Therefore, it is not in the safe.
- If the fault was not a power surge, it was a cut cable. The fault was not a power surge. Therefore, it was a cut cable.
- Either the leak is at the valve or at the seal. It is not at the valve, and it is not at the seal. Therefore, there is no leak, because the valve and seal are treated as an exhaustive list of possible leak locations.
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?