تدريب على التفكير المنطقي في LSAT

The other statements support the claim that the policy will be adopted, so that claim is the conclusion.

The conclusion is the final claim that the premises are offered to support.

The recommendation is the conclusion; the other statements provide evidence for it.

The cost and maintenance facts support the final prediction that the software saves money.

The profit and expansion facts are used to support the claim about online sales causing growth.

The listed benefits support the general conclusion that exercise benefits overall health.

For bike lanes to reduce traffic, enough car users must actually switch to bicycles.

The argument depends on the assumption that passing the required trials guarantees safety.

The conclusion depends on the sample representing the larger student population.

The argument links popularity directly to quality, so that link is the unstated assumption.

The conclusion depends on the repair being the only relevant change between yesterday and today.

For the comparison to be valid, productivity must be measured under fair and comparable conditions.

Independent replication with a larger sample makes the causal claim much more credible.

Observed accident reductions in cities with bike lanes directly supports the claim.

Evidence from comparable situations supports the prediction that higher prices reduce smoking.

A real-world case showing higher output after switching to remote work supports the claim.

The test-score evidence connects smaller classes to improved learning outcomes.

The empathy-score comparison directly supports the claimed effect of reading fiction.

The speed-limit change is an alternative cause that could explain the accident decrease.

A broad economic recovery provides an alternative explanation for rising profits.

If stronger students selected the course, the score difference may reflect selection rather than the course.

Healthy habits are an alternative cause of the longer lifespans, weakening the tea claim.

The simultaneous recycling program is an alternative explanation for the litter decrease.

The new hiring process is an alternative cause of the quality improvement.

A degree is necessary for being a manager here, but it is not sufficient; other people can have degrees too.

Three examples are far too few to support a prediction about the next applicant.

One mistake does not prove that unrelated claims are false.

The argument presents only two options when other policies may also improve the economy.

One personal example is anecdotal and cannot support a general policy conclusion.

The argument assumes that the correlation between glasses and intelligence is a causal relationship.

Because some employees work remotely and all employees must pass the check, at least one remote employee has passed it. The other choices add claims the premises do not support.

Strong writing is necessary for acceptance, but the premises do not show that it is sufficient, so Maria may still be rejected.

The conditional supports the comparison that City A residents exercise more, assuming other conditions are similar; it does not support the stronger claims.

If the storm closure caused the delay, the delay does not reflect the company's ordinary reliability.

The correlation between independent courts and investment is used as evidence to support the recommendation.

The critic uses limited charging infrastructure as a reason against the proposal.

The critics attack the quality of the evidence rather than directly asserting the drug is ineffective.

The dramatic error and quick correction make it unreasonable to treat $199 as a final posted price, so the principle does not require honoring it.

An accessible format directly addresses the limitation while preserving the exam requirement.

If customers bought more books, total revenue can rise even when the number of customers falls.

The measured increase may reflect a broader reporting area rather than less recycling by residents.

The internship is a necessary condition: graduation implies it, but completing it does not guarantee graduation.

Random assignment and a control group isolate the fertilizer's effect from other factors.

The politician attacks the coherence of the two positions rather than the opponent personally.

The original affirms the consequent; the matching argument does the same, treating a necessary condition as sufficient.

Randomized evidence directly supports the causal claim and controls for alternative explanations present in observational data.

Expanded bus service and tolls are alternative causes that could explain the traffic decline.

The principle makes withdrawal before the course began necessary for a refund, and the student did not meet that condition.

Substitution and a similar decline without the ban both provide alternative explanations for the observed change.

Comparable exams and comparable starting ability are needed for equal scores to support equal effectiveness; completion rate and instructor preference are not necessary to that claim.

A third variable and reversed causation are classic alternatives that undermine causal conclusions; controlling confounds and random assignment strengthen studies.

Random assignment and a placebo control reduce bias; self-selection and a small sample weaken the evidence.

Necessity means B requires A; sufficiency means A is enough for B. The other choices reverse those meanings.

Longitudinal evidence and reported balance directly support the claim; cost savings are irrelevant, and existing flexibility is a possible alternative explanation.

Premise support, hidden assumptions, and competing explanations are central to evaluation; popularity does not determine logical strength.

Validity concerns the relationship between premises and conclusion; a valid argument can still have false premises.

Correlation alone does not establish causation; other explanations and study design must be considered.

Assumptions are unstated claims the argument relies on; identifying them is a core LSAT skill.

A universal claim asserts that something holds in every case, so one genuine counterexample falsifies it.

Ad hominem means against the person; it attacks the speaker rather than addressing the reasoning.