easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An environmental advocacy group argues that because countries with higher investment in public transportation tend to have lower per-capita carbon emissions, increasing transit investment is the most effective way for any country to reduce its emissions.
The argument is flawed because it
- assumes that carbon emissions are the only legitimate yardstick by which any country's total environmental impact ought to be measured and fairly judged
- takes for granted that every country alike possesses all the financial means it would need in order to expand its own public transit investment
- neglects the plain fact that public transportation can itself, in its day-to-day operation, be a quite significant source of carbon emissions
- leaps from a correlation between transit investment and lower emissions to the claim that such investment is the single best means of reducing them
- assumes that no country with low transit investment has ever, in any single instance, managed to achieve genuinely low levels of per-capita emissions
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