medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions occurs when an argument treats a condition that is merely required for some result as though it were enough, by itself, to guarantee that result.
Which one of the following arguments commits the error described above?
- A certain minimum of rainfall is required for a good harvest; this year that amount of rain fell, so a good harvest is assured.
- Because the harvest this year was unusually poor, there must not have been nearly enough rainfall during the long growing season.
- The harvest was poor because the farmer relied on an outdated and inefficient method of planting his seed in the spring.
- What holds true for one individual farmer working alone must therefore hold true for the entire agricultural sector as well.
- Adequate rainfall always produces an excellent harvest, no matter what other growing conditions happen to prevail that year.
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