easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every student who receives a scholarship must maintain a grade point average of at least 3.5. Taylor maintains a grade point average of 3.8. Therefore, Taylor must be receiving a scholarship.
The reasoning above is flawed because it:
- Mistakes a requirement for receiving a scholarship for something that by itself secures one.
- Confuses the mere sequence of two related events with one event's actually causing the other.
- Neglects the possibility that Taylor's grade point average may have been lower in earlier semesters.
- Takes for granted, with no warrant whatever, that Taylor is in fact an enrolled and active student.
- Assumes that no student here could ever exceed the minimum grade point average that the rule sets.
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