medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An insurance company noticed that homeowners who install smart water leak detectors are fifty percent less likely to file a claim for water damage. The company concluded that these devices are highly effective at preventing major leaks by alerting owners to problems early.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company's conclusion?
- Homeowners who choose to buy smart leak detectors tend, as a group, to be people who already keep up rigorously with routine plumbing maintenance.
- Certain smart leak detector models can automatically shut off the home's main water valve the very instant any leak is first detected.
- Water damage consistently ranks among the very costliest categories of claims that property insurers are forced to pay out each year.
- Smart leak detectors are now so reliable that no household equipped with one will ever again suffer any significant water damage at all.
- The cost of buying and installing a smart leak detector is often fully recovered through a corresponding reduction in the owner's insurance premium.
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