easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every member of the state's championship-winning debate team is an exceptional public speaker. Therefore, the state's championship-winning debate team is, as a team, an exceptional public speaker.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
- It assumes that a characteristic belonging to each member of a group must therefore belong to the group taken as a single entity.
- It overlooks the possibility that several of the speakers joined the team only after its state championship had already been secured.
- It takes for granted that excellence in public speaking is the sole qualification anyone would ever need for winning a debate title.
- It draws an entirely unsupported comparison between two things that are simply not alike in any of the relevant respects at issue.
- It presumes that no debate team anywhere could possibly win a state championship without fielding several exceptional speakers.
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