medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Any candidate who wins the primary election goes on to receive a significant surge in private donations. Candidate Rivera has just experienced a significant surge in private donations. We can conclude, then, that Rivera must have won the primary.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it
- treats a condition that is enough to produce an effect as though that effect could arise from no other source.
- fails to consider that Rivera's surge in donations may have come before, rather than after, the primary was held.
- depends on the premise that donors contribute only to candidates they expect to win.
- treats the co-occurrence of a primary win and a donation surge as evidence that one caused the other.
- assumes that what produces a surge in donations for one candidate will produce it for every candidate.
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