← All LNAT Flashcard Decks

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
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Which word is closest in meaning to 'perfidious'?

    Answer: Treacherous

    'Perfidious' means guilty of betrayal or treachery, especially in breaking trust or faith.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.