easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Anyone who owns a dog must pay a local registration fee. Marcus does not own a dog. Therefore, Marcus does not have to pay a local registration fee.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it
- infers from the absence of one thing that would trigger an obligation that the obligation itself must be absent
- presumes, without warrant, that paying the dog-registration fee is the only cost that owning a dog imposes on a person
- overlooks that some dog owners, despite their clear obligation, will simply decline to pay the fee they actually owe
- confuses a requirement that the act of owning a dog imposes with a benefit that ownership separately confers on the owner
- assumes the local government plainly lacks the legal authority to impose any registration fee of this kind at all
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