medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An argument states: 'Every time the temperature drops below freezing, the pipes in this building burst. The pipes burst yesterday, so the temperature must have dropped below freezing.'
The reasoning is flawed because it
- relies on an analogy between freezing pipes and falling temperature that is far too weak to support the conclusion drawn.
- fails to establish independently that the temperature in the building did in fact drop below the freezing point overnight.
- treats two recurring events that merely correlate in time as though one of them must have directly caused the other.
- treats a condition that is enough to bring about an outcome as though it were the only thing that could bring it about.
- assumes that the pipes in this particular building are guaranteed to burst at even the slightest seasonal drop in temperature.
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 these statements?
- 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?