medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every X is a Y. Most Y are Z. A student wonders whether it follows that some X are Z.
Which one of the following correctly states whether the conclusion follows, and why?
- It does not follow, because the Z-bearing majority of the Y's might lie entirely within the portion of Y that contains no X.
- It does follow, because once all X fall inside Y, whatever is generally true of Y carries over to X.
- It does follow, because 'some' is the most modest of conclusions and 'most' can always sustain it.
- It does not follow, because the quantifiers 'most' and 'every' are of types that can never appear together in valid reasoning.
- It does not follow, because 'every X is a Y' fails to establish that any X actually exists.
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