medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Some accountants are marathon runners, and some marathon runners are vegetarians. A commentator concludes that, therefore, some accountants are vegetarians.
The reasoning in the commentator's argument is flawed because it fails to recognize that
- the marathon runners who are accountants and the marathon runners who are vegetarians might be two entirely separate groups
- the word 'some' could actually mean 'all,' which would make the conclusion too sweeping
- it might in fact be the case that no marathon runners are vegetarians at all
- the argument has switched the sufficient and necessary conditions attached to marathon runners
- some accountants might themselves be marathon runners who avoid eating meat
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?