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' might here secretly stand for 'all,' a reading that would only make the stated conclusion far too sweeping
- it might in fact turn out, contrary to the second stated premise, that no marathon runners are vegetarians at all whatsoever
- the argument has quietly switched the sufficient and necessary conditions that are attached to being a marathon runner
- some accountants might themselves happen to be marathon runners who, as it so happens, also avoid eating any meat at all
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