medium · 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 of a country's environmental impact
- takes for granted that every country possesses the financial means to expand its transit investment
- neglects the fact that public transportation can itself be a 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 achieved low per-capita emissions
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?