medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An advocate for a new urban park observed that every city that built a large central park in the past decade subsequently saw nearby property values rise. The advocate concluded that building a park in our city will likewise raise property values.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider that
- the rising property values may themselves have been what enabled those cities to fund the parks, reversing the supposed direction of influence
- the resulting increase in property values may not be large enough to recoup the long-term cost of building and then later maintaining the park
- the advocate is a real-estate developer who stands to profit personally and quite substantially from the proposed park's construction
- the advocate, as the very person proposing the park, can hardly be regarded as a neutral or trustworthy source on the matter
- the parks built in those other cities may have differed sharply in scale, layout, and design from the single one our own city would build
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