medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Whenever it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it must have rained.
The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- overlooks that wet ground could result from causes other than the one cited, since rain is only one way of producing that condition
- presumes that because two events occur together, one of them must have produced the other
- draws a sweeping generalization from a sample of cases that is far too small
- neglects the fact that rain may fall in some locations while sparing others
- concludes that rain is impossible whenever the ground happens to be dry
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?