easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
To get a promotion at this firm, an employee must have at least five years of experience. James has six years of experience. Therefore, James will get a promotion.
Which one of the following, if true, most clearly demonstrates the flaw in the reasoning?
- The firm additionally requires that any candidate pass a management examination before becoming eligible for promotion.
- The firm's written promotion policy has been formally revised on several occasions over the course of the past decade.
- Many of the firm's employees with well over five years of experience choose, for their own reasons, not to apply for promotion.
- James happens to hold more total years of experience than several of the colleagues who were promoted in the most recent cycle.
- No employee anywhere at the firm has ever been granted a promotion while holding fewer than the required five years of experience.
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