easy · 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 the two events, rainfall and wet ground, often occur together in time, one of them must have produced the other
- draws a sweeping generalization about all wet ground from a sample of directly observed cases that is plainly far too small to be reliable
- neglects the plain fact that, on a given day, rain may fall heavily in some particular locations while entirely sparing other nearby ones
- concludes that any amount of rainfall is altogether impossible whenever the ground in a given place happens to be completely free of moisture
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