easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
To be eligible for the scholarship, a student must have a GPA above 3.8. Maria has a GPA of 3.9. So Maria will definitely receive the scholarship.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it
- employs a single key term in two distinctly different senses within one argument.
- treats a requirement for an outcome as though meeting it guaranteed the outcome.
- treats a mere statistical correlation as though it were proof of a causal relationship.
- attacks the source of a claim rather than addressing the merits of the scholarship rule.
- assumes, without any warrant, that no other student has a GPA higher than Maria's own.
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