Free LSAT Practice Question

Question 1 of 1
ID: LSAT-LR-111
Section: Logical Reasoning
Topic: Flaw in the Reasoning
Difficulty level: Medium

Practice Mode: Single selected Question » Back to Overview

Frame builder: The cracks at the seat cluster on our steel frames are not, as riders suppose, a sign of thin tubing. They are a sign the joint was overheated in brazing. The frames that crack are always ones we brazed in the winter shop, where the builder works faster to keep warm, and speed at the torch puts extra heat into a joint.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the builder's reasoning?

AIt gives no support for the aside that the winter-shop builder works faster in order to keep warm, resting that part of the account on a supposition.

BIt takes what the cracked frames share to be what cracked them, when the winter shop may differ from the other in more than the pace at which a joint is brazed.

CIt takes the frames the winter shop brazed to be the ones that crack, when what the builder reports is that the frames which crack were brazed there.

DIt rests the whole of its account on a general claim about what speed at the torch does to a joint, without one observation of how hot a winter-shop joint actually ran.

EIt settles between two accounts by a case only one of them explains, then treats that case as typical.

» Quit