Verbal Reasoning Flashcards
7 cards from real LNAT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Verbal Reasoning flashcards as text
A passage argues: 'Freedom of speech must be absolute, or it means nothing.' This is an example of which fallacy?
Answer: False dichotomy
The argument presents only two extremes — absolute freedom or meaninglessness — ignoring the possibility of principled, limited restrictions.
Which best describes the function of a 'rebuttal' in legal argumentation?
Answer: Countering the opposing party's specific arguments.
A rebuttal directly addresses and counters the specific arguments made by the opposing side.
A passage says: 'The more education a person has, the higher their earning potential.' Which best describes the logical structure of this statement?
Answer: A causal correlation between two variables.
The statement asserts a directional relationship between education level and earnings, making it a causal-correlation claim.
Which word is closest in meaning to 'perfidious'?
Answer: Treacherous
'Perfidious' means guilty of betrayal or treachery, especially in breaking trust or faith.
A passage argues regulation stifles innovation. Which evidence would most SUPPORT this argument?
Answer: Heavily regulated industries show slower rates of patent filing than unregulated ones.
Slower patent rates in regulated industries directly supports the claim that regulation inhibits innovative output.
In a passage, the author concedes a point to the opposition before reasserting their own view. What rhetorical technique is this?
Answer: Concession and refutation
Concession and refutation involves acknowledging a valid opposing point before explaining why your overall argument still holds.
A passage claims: 'If the defendant was at the scene, they must be guilty.' Which is the most significant flaw in this reasoning?
Answer: It ignores the possibility of being at the scene without committing the crime.
Presence at a scene is not sufficient to establish guilt — it conflates proximity with culpability, ignoring innocent explanations.