hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
No professional athlete is a heavy smoker. Some heavy smokers are also accomplished musicians. Therefore, some professional athletes are not accomplished musicians.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that
- the professional athletes could, consistent with the premises, all turn out to be accomplished musicians.
- some heavy smokers may, consistent with the premises, turn out not to be accomplished musicians after all.
- no heavy smoker is, according to the very first premise, a professional athlete of any kind whatsoever.
- the category of professional athlete and the category of accomplished musician are entirely mutually exclusive.
- it is strictly impossible for any single professional athlete to also be an accomplished musician.
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