easy · 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 the availability of organic food is the single decisive factor governing the overall health of any community in which the stores appear.
- fails to allow that some residents of towns entirely lacking any organic stores nonetheless go on to live exceptionally long and healthy lives.
- disparages the personal habits of those residents who decline to patronize the organic grocery stores rather than weighing the actual evidence offered.
- relies on life-expectancy figures gathered only from a set of towns that are not representative of the broader general population it means to address.
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