medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning

Which one of the following most accurately identifies two flaws in the claim?

1. It treats James's shared group skill as proof that he personally did one task, and treats his high skill as a guarantee of zero errors.
2. It commits a plain fallacy of division, and then mistakes a clearly necessary condition for a sufficient one within the same single step.
3. It uses a key term in an ambiguous way, and rests the entire inference on an unearned appeal to some recognized authority figure.
4. It confuses mere statistical correlation with genuine causation, and forces a false either-or choice between two narrowed options.
5. It overlooks that other engineers might also know Python well, and ignores that a genuinely new security update would still need testing.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →