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 cause as guaranteeing 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 for one of genuine causation.
- It confuses a condition necessary for a result with one that is sufficient for it.
- It generalizes from Sarah's individual case to a claim about all students.
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?