medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The last three times I wore my blue scarf to the stadium, the home team won their game. It is obvious that wearing my blue scarf is a significant factor in the team's victory.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- concludes that an action contributed to a result merely because the action came before each instance of that result
- shifts the meaning of a key term partway through its line of reasoning, treating two distinct senses as though they were one
- draws on a sample of fans far too small to speak reliably for the stadium's broader attendance on any given game day
- overlooks that the home team might well have prevailed in each of those games even with the blue scarf left at home
- assumes that the scarf's particular color, rather than the scarf itself or the act of wearing it, is what swayed the games
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