medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A political analyst argues: To win the upcoming election, a candidate must secure the endorsement of the Labor Union. Candidate Miller has just secured the Labor Union endorsement. Therefore, Miller will certainly win the election.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the analyst's reasoning?
- It assumes that because one event precedes another, the earlier event must have caused the later one.
- It overlooks the possibility that the union's endorsement could repel more voters than it wins over.
- It mistakes a requirement for a particular outcome for something that, once met, guarantees that outcome.
- It relies on a key term that shifts from a political sense to a literal one as the argument proceeds.
- It treats the favorable testimony of an interested party as though it were neutral expert evidence.
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?