easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Every person who has reached the summit of Mount Everest has experienced extreme cold. John has experienced extreme cold. So John must have reached the summit of Mount Everest.
Which one of the following most accurately identifies a flaw in the reasoning above?
- It overlooks that enduring extreme cold is something many circumstances besides an Everest climb can bring about
- It assumes that enduring extreme cold is the one and only prerequisite a person must meet to reach Everest's summit
- It improperly generalizes about every summit climber from a small and quite unrepresentative sample of mountaineers
- It disregards the genuine chance that a person might reach the very summit yet never once feel any extreme cold at all
- It mistakes a mere correlation between extreme cold and climbing for a relationship in which the one actually causes the other
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