easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A scientist argues: the theory of cold fusion has never been definitively disproven. Therefore, we are justified in continuing to treat it as a viable scientific possibility.
The reasoning in the scientist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- treats the mere absence of evidence refuting a claim as though it were positive support for that claim
- shifts back and forth between two distinct meanings of the term 'viable' over the course of the argument
- rests on an analogy between cold fusion and some other phenomenon that is not, in truth, genuinely comparable
- infers something about cold fusion taken as a whole from a property belonging only to its individual components
- presumes that any scientific theory not yet definitively disproven is certain to be confirmed at a later date
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