Discussion
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?
*This question is included in June 2012 LSAT (PT66): Logical Reasoning B, question #24
| (A) | No one who lives in a house both owns it and pays rent on it. So, since my next-door neighbors pay rent on their house, it must be that they do not own it. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 01/05/2013 19:51
I dont understand this one. I think any of the answers could be correct.
Posted: 02/01/2013 20:11
The argument relies on the premise that X and Y can't coexist, and mistakenly concludes that the absence of X implies the presence of Y. Only D does this. For example:
A adds the premise that X exists before concluding that Y must be absent.
A adds the premise that X exists before concluding that Y must be absent.