easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A study found that cities with the highest number of parks also report the highest levels of resident life satisfaction. Based on this, urban planners argue that building more parks is the most effective way to improve the well-being of a city's population.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- Treats the mere co-occurrence of two measures as proof that one of them produces the other.
- Presumes that whatever holds true of a city overall must hold true of each individual resident.
- Substitutes an attack on the planners' credibility for engagement with their actual proposal.
- Neglects to show that reported life satisfaction is a statistically meaningful gauge of well-being.
- Concludes that no city could improve well-being by any means other than constructing parks.
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