medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In the context of the propositional logic P → Q, it is often stated that the truth of Q is necessary for the truth of P. Claim [1]: If we observe that ¬ Q is true, we must conclude that ¬ P is true. Claim [2]: This is the contrapositive of the original conditional statement. Because the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement, it provides a valid basis for deduction.
What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?
- It is a counter-argument aimed at the original conditional.
- It is the conclusion that the passage ultimately argues for.
- It is an intermediate conclusion deduced as a consequence of Claim [1].
- It is a premise that classifies the preceding inference, which then anchors the final claim of validity.
- It correctly labels the inference a contrapositive, but it is offered to introduce the separate rule of modus ponens.
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 the statements above?
- 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?