medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
All top-tier law firms require their associates to work at least sixty hours per week. No firm that requires such long hours can maintain high levels of employee satisfaction. Therefore, if a law firm has high levels of employee satisfaction, it is not a top-tier firm.
Which of the following most accurately describes the pattern of reasoning in the argument?
- It connects three categories by taking the contrapositives of two conditionals and chaining them into a valid deduction.
- It treats a condition merely required for an outcome as though it were already enough by itself to bring that outcome about.
- It overturns a broad and seemingly settled generalization by appealing to a single case that runs directly counter to it.
- It infers that each individual member within a group must share a trait simply because the group as a whole possesses it.
- It supports its central conclusion by drawing a loose analogy between elite law firms and other highly competitive workplaces.
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