easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
I visited two different branches of the local coffee shop this morning and both were out of oat milk. It is safe to say that every coffee shop in the city is currently facing a total oat milk shortage.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it:
- Extends a sweeping conclusion about all of the city's coffee shops from observations at just two locations.
- Treats the absence of oat milk at two branches as conclusively disproving any claim that oat milk is widely available.
- Relies on the word milk in two different and mutually incompatible senses across the argument.
- Rejects the existence of a shortage based on suspicions about the motives of the coffee shop owners.
- Concludes that because the shops ran out of oat milk this morning, they must run out again later in the day.
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