easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In order to attend the concert, you must have a valid ticket. Sarah has a valid ticket, so she will definitely be able to attend.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- treats a requirement for attending as though meeting it were enough to guarantee attendance
- treats something that by itself guarantees attendance as though it were merely a requirement for it
- overlooks the clear possibility that a person might attend the concert without any ticket at all
- simply assumes, with no support offered at all, that Sarah has any wish to attend the concert
- infers a sweeping general rule about all concertgoers from the single, isolated case of Sarah alone
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 because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?