medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An insurance company should pay a claim for water damage only if the damage resulted from a sudden pipe burst and the homeowner has performed regular maintenance on the plumbing system.
Which one of the following situations most closely conforms to the principle above?
- A claim is paid for damage caused by a slow-leaking valve because the homeowner had the system inspected every year.
- A claim is paid because the water damage was so extensive that the family was forced to move out of their home.
- An insurer rejects a claim arising from a sudden pipe burst because the policyholder had ignored a warning to replace a corroded length of pipe.
- All claims involving burst pipes must be paid if the homeowner can prove they hired a plumber for an annual check-up.
- A claim from a sudden pipe burst at a diligently maintained home is denied even though both stated conditions are satisfied.
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?