Verbal Reasoning Flashcards
7 cards from real LNAT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Verbal Reasoning flashcards as text
A passage argues: 'Because a law has existed for centuries, it should not be changed.' This argument relies on which flawed assumption?
Answer: Longevity is a reliable indicator of a law's continued justness and relevance.
The argument appeals to tradition, assuming age confers validity — but a law can be ancient and still unjust or outdated.
A passage distinguishes 'descriptive' from 'normative' claims. Which of the following is a normative claim?
Answer: Courts should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
Normative claims make value judgments about what ought to be, whereas descriptive claims state facts about what is.
Which best describes the relationship between 'correlation' and 'causation'?
Answer: Correlation means two variables move together but does not establish that one causes the other.
Correlation shows an association between variables but does not prove that one event produces the other — a third factor may explain both.
An author states: 'This policy has never been tried before, so it will not work.' What is wrong with this reasoning?
Answer: It assumes novelty implies failure, without evidence.
The argument assumes that because something has not been done before, it must fail — an unjustified leap with no supporting evidence.
Which best captures the meaning of 'inviolable' as used in human rights discourse?
Answer: A right that is incapable of being violated or overridden under any conditions.
'Inviolable' means something that must never be broken or infringed upon — in rights discourse, it denotes absolute protections.
A passage presents two sides of the assisted dying debate. The author concludes: 'Therefore, the evidence does not decisively favor either position.' This conclusion is an example of:
Answer: A balanced, agnostic evaluation of the evidence
The author is making an epistemically humble judgment that the evidence is genuinely inconclusive rather than favoring one side.
In a LNAT passage, you are told: 'All contracts require consideration. This agreement lacks consideration.' What can be logically concluded?
Answer: This agreement is not a valid contract.
Using modus tollens: if all valid contracts require consideration and this agreement lacks it, then it cannot be a valid contract.