hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Alvarez: Since the new downtown bike lanes opened, traffic congestion has fallen sharply. The lanes have clearly eased congestion by giving commuters an alternative to driving. Boyd: Congestion has indeed dropped, but not because of the bike lanes. A major employer shut its downtown office the very week the lanes opened, removing thousands of car commuters at a stroke; the lanes themselves made no difference.
Alvarez's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it
- presumes that the employer closed its office because the bike lanes opened
- infers that the bike lanes caused the congestion decline from temporal association without ruling out the simultaneous removal of thousands of commuters
- fails to show that congestion declined in any neighborhood outside downtown
- treats a fall in congestion as proof that total traffic accidents also declined
- assumes that every commuter who uses a bike lane previously drove a car downtown, rather than having shifted from transit, walking, or trips that would not otherwise occur
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- 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?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?