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 the registration fee is the only cost that dog ownership imposes
- overlooks the possibility that certain dog owners will simply decline to pay the fee they owe
- confuses a requirement that ownership imposes with a benefit that ownership confers
- assumes that the local government has the authority to impose any registration fee at all
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?