hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In a study of ten luxury-car owners, eight reported that they feel safer in vehicles with leather interiors than in those with fabric interiors. Therefore, leather interiors are a more effective safety feature than fabric ones. A prominent cardiologist endorsed the finding, observing that "a sense of security is vital for heart health."
The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
- Generalizes from a sample too small and skewed to be representative, and backs the claim with an authority whose field does not establish it.
- Takes the merely earlier of two correlated events to be the genuine cause of the later one, and disregards readily available counter-evidence.
- Assumes a property holding of one luxury car must hold of every luxury car, and ignores the considerable cost of installing such features.
- Treats a condition that is necessary for safety as though it were by itself sufficient, and trades on two distinct senses of the word 'safe.'
- Mistakes the mere temporal ordering of two correlated developments for proof that the earlier one actually caused the later, and trades on two senses of 'safe.'
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