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 any support, that passing the ethics examination is by itself fully enough to make a person a lawyer.
- It ignores the chance that some currently practicing lawyers never actually managed to pass the required ethics examination.
- It assumes that volunteering at a legal clinic is itself one of the formal requirements for a person to become a lawyer.
- It draws a sweeping universal claim about all lawyers from facts concerning only a small handful of the exam-takers.
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