easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
All cats are mammals. No mammals are reptiles. Therefore, no cats are reptiles.
Which of the following most accurately describes the logical validity of the argument?
- The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, so the argument is valid.
- It is invalid because it mistakes a property of a part for a property of the whole.
- It is invalid because it merely assumes, rather than proves, that all cats are mammals.
- It is invalid because it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
- It is invalid because true premises can never establish a negative conclusion.
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