easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
If a student completes the firm's internship program, that student is guaranteed a job offer from the firm. Sarah did not complete the internship program. Therefore, Sarah will not receive a job offer from the firm.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it
- treats a route that is sufficient to secure an offer as though it were the only route to one
- fails to spell out what counts as completing the internship program successfully
- overlooks the possibility that Sarah had no wish to receive an offer from the firm
- assumes the firm's hiring practices have stayed the same over the relevant period
- presumes that any student who completes the program would necessarily accept an offer
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