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 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