medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
If you own a cat, you must buy cat food. You do not own a cat. Therefore, you do not buy cat food.
This argument is flawed because it does which of the following?
- It is in fact a valid contrapositive of the rule and therefore contains no logical flaw.
- It infers the absence of the guaranteed result from the absence of the triggering condition.
- It trades on key terms whose intended meanings quietly shift between the premises and conclusion.
- It affirms the consequent rather than legitimately denying the rule's antecedent condition.
- It wrongly assumes that owning a cat is the single conceivable reason anyone buys cat food.
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