LSAT Logic Reasoning 3

Question 1

A law firm's memo states: 'Partners who bill over 2,000 hours annually receive bonuses. Associate Rivera billed 2,100 hours this year.' What can be properly concluded?

Accepted Answer

Rivera will receive a bonus.

Answer

The conditional 'if over 2,000 hours then bonus' combined with Rivera meeting that threshold directly yields the conclusion that Rivera receives a bonus.

Question 2

Which of the following is an example of an appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)?

Accepted Answer

No one has proven ghosts don't exist, so ghosts must exist.

Answer

Concluding existence from lack of disproof is the classic appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Question 3

A study shows that people who eat breakfast daily have higher GPAs. A school counselor concludes students should eat breakfast to improve grades. Which assumption is the counselor making?

Accepted Answer

The correlation between breakfast and GPA is causal, not merely correlational.

Answer

The counselor treats a correlational finding as causal, assuming breakfast eating produces higher GPAs rather than being merely associated with them.

Question 4

Premises: 'Either the defendant was at the scene or has an alibi. The defendant has no alibi.' The valid conclusion is:

Accepted Answer

The defendant was at the scene.

Answer

This is a valid disjunctive syllogism: denying one disjunct (no alibi) forces acceptance of the other (was at the scene).

Question 5

An editorial argues that because violent video games are popular among teenagers, and teen violence has increased, violent games cause teen violence. The primary flaw in this reasoning is:

Accepted Answer

It ignores that correlation does not establish causation.

Answer

The argument mistakes a temporal or statistical correlation for a causal relationship without ruling out other explanations.

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT - Law School Admission Test Practice Test

LSAT Logic Reasoning 3