medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A legal theorist argued that because no law is perfectly just, it follows that every law is inherently unjust.
The reasoning in the theorist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- treats anything short of complete perfection in a quality as if it amounted to wholly lacking that quality.
- neglects to first settle on a single, precise definition of 'just' that every working legal scholar would endorse.
- infers a feature of an entire law from a feature found in merely one isolated provision contained within it.
- presupposes, without any argument, that achieving justice is the single foremost aim that any law is meant to serve.
- concludes that absolutely all laws are unjust merely because most laws contain at least one objectionable clause.
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