Forgot Password?
 
Links
About Arcadia LSAT Shorthand NotationArcadia Prep's GMAT CourseArcadia Prep's LSAT CourseArcadia Prep's SAT CourseArcadia Prep's GRE CourseThe Simply Brilliant GMAT AppAbout the MCATMCAT Physical and Biological SciencesAbout Arcadia Prep's MCAT CourseTerms of SaleTerms of UseAbout Arcadia Apps
iPhone App Store
GGRE Prep App
GMAT Prep App
LSAT Prep App
LSAT Prep
SAT Prep App
 
Back to Questions

No one who works at Leila’s Electronics has received both a poor performance ... ...

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?
(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) ...

*This question is included in June 2012 LSAT (PT66): Logical Reasoning B

Collapse All Subordinate Threads
Image Not Available
 
Replies to This Thread: 1 | ----
 
Posted: 01/05/2013 19:51
I dont understand this one. I think any of the answers could be correct.
Image Not Available
Reply 1 of 1
Replies to This Thread: 0 | ----
 
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.
Arcadia Prep © 2012.
Contact Arcadia  |  Terms of Use  |  Terms of Sale  |  Change Log-in Info