medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Studies show that cities with higher numbers of libraries also have higher literacy rates. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that building more libraries will increase literacy, because the cities with more libraries tend to be wealthier, and wealth is the primary driver of literacy.
In the argument above, the author's claim that wealth is the primary driver of literacy serves which of the following roles?
- It supplies an alternative cause that supports the author's verdict against the library-literacy inference.
- It is the central conclusion that the rest of the passage is expressly designed to establish and defend.
- It is a casual observation invoked merely to illustrate a broader principle about literacy and wealth.
- It is an opposing position that the author introduces only in order to go on and decisively refute it.
- It is the empirical finding from which the entire argument originally proceeds toward its conclusion.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- 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?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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