medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
No one who has not passed the bar exam is a licensed attorney. All licensed attorneys in this jurisdiction must carry malpractice insurance. Therefore, if Sarah is a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction, she has passed the bar exam.
The reasoning in the argument is
- valid, because the conclusion follows necessarily once the first premise makes bar passage a requirement of being an attorney.
- valid, because the requirement that Sarah carry malpractice insurance by itself entails that she has passed the bar.
- flawed, because it mistakes a condition that is merely necessary for being an attorney for one that is fully sufficient.
- flawed, because it overlooks that a person can pass the bar exam without ever going on to become a licensed attorney.
- valid, because the malpractice-insurance premise, on its own, is what establishes that Sarah has already passed the bar exam.
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