medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An editorial states: Every major city that has implemented a congestion tax has seen an immediate reduction in traffic delays. Our city is a major city. Therefore, if we implement a congestion tax, we will see an immediate reduction in traffic delays.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- draws an analogy between cities whose public transit systems may differ too greatly to support it
- mistakes a condition sufficient for an outcome for one that is necessary to it
- assumes without justification that a pattern holding in every observed case will hold in a new one
- takes for granted that easing traffic delays is the most pressing problem any major city faces
- infers that because the tax preceded reduced delays elsewhere, the tax must have caused the reduction
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