QUESTION TEXT: The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Dalton can’t be a member of the Sutherlin law firm.
REASONING: Dalton is a divorce lawyer. The Sutherlin law firm is really good at criminal law.
ANALYSIS: This argument is very silly. People and companies can do more than one thing. Sutherlin might be mainly a criminal defense firm but also handle divorce cases.
___________
- There’s no contradiction in the argument. The conclusion could be right. It just doesn’t have to be.
- Huh? The conclusion didn’t say that Dalton couldn’t practice law. It just said he didn’t practice law with Sutherlin.
- CORRECT. Sutherlin is mainly specialized in criminal defense, but they could do other things, such as divorce.
- An example of this would be: “John is a criminal defense attorney at Sutherlin. Sutherlin tends to be successful at criminal defense. So John must be successful.”
- The stimulus didn’t take any selection of Sutherlin attorneys. It just made a generalization about the firm (it mostly does criminal defense.)
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply