hard · LSAT
Economist: My opponent claims that raising the minimum wage always reduces total employment. But the last three times our state raised its minimum wage, total employment rose in the following year. So my opponent's claim is false. Of course, this does not show that raising the minimum wage caused employment to rise.
The economist's argument proceeds by
- offering counterexamples to refute a universal generalization while explicitly declining to assert a causal claim of its own
- demonstrating that raising the minimum wage reliably causes total employment to increase
- attacking the opponent's character rather than the substance of the opponent's claim
- establishing that the opponent's claim is true in most cases but false in a few exceptional ones
- appealing to the testimony of economic authorities who reject the opponent's position
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?