medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Anyone who possesses a key to the vault must be a member of the executive committee. Since no one who has been with the company for less than five years is a member of the executive committee, it follows that no one who has been with the company for less than five years possesses a key to the vault.
The reasoning in the argument is
- sound, because it joins two conditional statements through a shared category to reach its conclusion.
- sound, because it rests on the unstated premise that only committee members can be trusted with keys.
- flawed, because it overlooks the chance that some of the vault keys were lost or stolen over time.
- flawed, because it presumes that committee membership alone is enough to guarantee possession of a key.
- flawed, because it confuses what is merely necessary for key possession with what would be sufficient.
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 these statements?
- 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?