easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
If a student studies for at least ten hours, that student will pass the exam. Maria passed the exam, so she must have studied for at least ten hours.
The reasoning above is flawed because it:
- treats studying ten hours, which is merely one guaranteed route to passing, as though it were the only way anyone could pass
- neglects to specify precisely which numerical score on the exam counts as the official threshold for a passing grade
- assumes without warrant that studying for a full ten hours is a feat that most ordinary students simply could not manage
- relies on the unstated supposition that Maria is a representative or otherwise typical member of the class of students
- concludes, far more strongly than the premises permit, that no student studying under ten hours could ever possibly pass
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