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
- draws on a group of fans too small to speak for the stadium's attendees as a whole
- overlooks that the home team might have prevailed even with the scarf left at home
- assumes that the scarf's color, rather than the scarf itself, is what influenced the games
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?