easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Reports that I received illegal campaign contributions are surely false. It has come to light that the stories were leaked by a former employee who was dismissed and harbors a personal grudge against me.
The politician's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- dismisses an allegation by impugning the accuser's motives instead of weighing the allegation itself
- overlooks the possibility that other current employees also regard the leaked reports as fully accurate
- takes for granted the very legality of the disputed contributions that it sets out here to establish
- assumes that the former employee's personal grudge was the one and only motive for leaking the reports
- concludes from a single disclosure that the dismissed former employee is incapable of ever telling truth
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