medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A public health advocate argues that because residents of towns with high concentrations of organic grocery stores tend to have longer life expectancies, opening more organic grocery stores is an effective strategy for increasing the lifespan of the general population.
The advocate's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- infers that the stores produce the longer lifespans when their abundance may instead be a byproduct of an already healthier, longer-lived population.
- presumes that organic food is the single factor governing the health of any community.
- fails to allow that some residents of towns lacking organic stores nonetheless live exceptionally long lives.
- disparages the personal habits of those who do not patronize organic grocery stores rather than evaluating the evidence.
- relies on life-expectancy figures gathered from towns that are not representative of the general population.
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 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?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?