hard · LSAT
Nations with lower per-capita carbon emissions tend to invest more heavily in public transit than nations with higher emissions. From this, a policy analyst concludes that increasing investment in public transit is the most effective way for any country to bring its emissions down.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the analyst's reasoning?
- It treats a strategy associated with lower emissions across nations on average as the single best emissions-cutting tool for each nation individually.
- It does not define per-capita carbon emissions precisely enough to permit valid comparisons between countries.
- It disregards the possibility that public transit vehicles are themselves meaningful emitters of carbon.
- It supposes that nations investing in public transit do so solely out of environmental motives.
- It assumes that low-emission nations would reduce emissions further if they invested even more in transit.
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?