medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
If a student completes the internship, then that student is eligible for the senior seminar. Sarah is eligible for the senior seminar. The argument concludes that Sarah must therefore have completed the internship.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
- It denies the antecedent, treating the absence of a stated cause as a guarantee of the absence of its effect.
- It takes a condition that suffices to produce an outcome to be the only route by which that outcome can arise.
- It mistakes a relationship of mere temporal sequence between two events for one of genuine underlying causation.
- It confuses a condition that is merely necessary for a given result with one that is fully sufficient for it.
- It generalizes from Sarah's single individual case to a sweeping claim covering every student in the program.
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