easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The senator claimed that the new regulation was in the public interest. However, since the senator has a significant financial stake in the industry being regulated, the regulation is clearly not in the public interest.
The argument is logically flawed because it
- dismisses a claim by pointing to the interests of the person who advanced it rather than examining the claim on its merits
- takes for granted that elected officials of every party invariably act to advance their own private financial interests
- fails to allow that one regulation can serve an industry's commercial interests and the public's interests simultaneously
- shifts illicitly between two genuinely distinct senses of the expression the public interest over the course of the argument
- assumes that the senator's particular claim must be false simply because it has never been independently verified by others
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