easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A nutritionist states: 'The average height of adults in this region has risen by 5 centimeters over the past century. Consequently, most individuals in the region today are taller than their ancestors of a century ago.'
The reasoning in the nutritionist's argument is flawed because it:
- Treats a change in a group's average as though it held true for most of the group's individual members.
- Uses data drawn entirely from the past as the basis for an unwarranted prediction about future heights.
- Neglects the substantial contribution that inherited genetic factors make to any person's adult height.
- Disregards the chance that migration into the region has altered the makeup of its resident population.
- Assumes that height is the single physical trait of the population that has changed over the past century.
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