medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Consider the statement: "No candidate can win the election without receiving a majority of the suburban vote."
Which one of the following is logically equivalent to the statement above?
- A candidate who fails to capture a majority of the suburban vote cannot win the election.
- A candidate who fails to win the election did not capture a majority of the suburban vote.
- A candidate who captures a majority of the suburban vote will win the election.
- A candidate who wins the election also captures a majority of the urban vote.
- A candidate who captures a majority of the suburban vote will not necessarily win the election.
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?