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 opt to buy smart leak detectors tend, as a group, to be the kind of people who already keep up rigorously with routine plumbing and appliance maintenance.
- Certain models of smart leak detector can automatically close the home's main water valve the instant a leak is detected.
- Water damage consistently ranks among the costliest categories of claims that insurers must pay out each year.
- Smart leak detectors are so reliable that no household equipped with one will ever suffer significant water damage again.
- The expense of buying and installing a smart leak detector is frequently recovered through a reduction in the homeowner's insurance premium.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?