easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Anyone hired for the management position must have at least five years of experience. Sarah has six years of experience. Therefore, Sarah will be hired.
The reasoning above is flawed because it:
- Treats satisfaction of a requirement for being hired as though it guaranteed being hired.
- Infers that Sarah will not be hired merely from the fact that she lacks the required experience.
- Dismisses Sarah's candidacy by appealing to irrelevant features of her character.
- Concludes that a property of the management team as a whole must hold of Sarah individually.
- Overlooks the possibility that other applicants also possess five or more years of experience.
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