easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The average height of the players on the city's professional basketball team is over six feet. Therefore, any individual player on the team must be over six feet tall.
The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- assumes that a figure true of the team taken collectively, such as its average, must hold of each player taken separately
- overlooks that professional basketball players are, as a group, generally far taller than members of the general population
- presumes, without any support, that height is the single most important determinant of an individual basketball player's success
- neglects to state the exact measured height of the shortest individual player currently rostered on the city's professional team
- concludes, overreaching well past its evidence, that no professional basketball player anywhere could ever stand under six feet
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