If the school bans phones at lunch, next it will ban talking at lunch, and then it will ban lunch altogether. So phones must be allowed. The argument is flawed because it A) assumes each step will inevitably lead to the next without evidence B) ignores the benefits students get from phones C) attacks the character of the school board D) treats a possible outcome as though it already happened E) confuses a ban on phones with a ban on talking

A) assumes each step will inevitably lead to the next without evidence

LSAT Question of the Day — July 8, 2026

One free LSAT-style logical reasoning question a day. No timer. Pick an answer to check yourself, then read the explanation.

Flaw question · #10 of 60

If the school bans phones at lunch, next it will ban talking at lunch, and then it will ban lunch altogether. So phones must be allowed.

The argument is flawed because it

Show explanation

There is no reason to think one lunch rule must slide into the next. The argument predicts a chain reaction it never supports.

One question a day builds the habit.

A free diagnostic shows your real starting score, then a study plan tells you what to work on next.

Last updated October 12, 2026