medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
All lawyers must pass an ethics examination. Some people who pass the ethics examination also volunteer at legal clinics. Therefore, some lawyers volunteer at legal clinics.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
- It overlooks the possibility that the exam-passers who volunteer at clinics are entirely people who are not lawyers.
- It presumes, without support, that passing the ethics examination is by itself enough to make someone a lawyer.
- It ignores the chance that some practicing lawyers never managed to pass the ethics examination.
- It assumes that volunteering at a legal clinic is one of the requirements for becoming a lawyer.
- It draws a sweeping claim about all lawyers from facts about only a handful of exam-takers.
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?