medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The city's plan to install more streetlights is a waste of money. Lighting does not deter crime. This is proven by the fact that 60 percent of all crimes in this city occur during daylight hours.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- draws a conclusion about lighting's effect on nighttime crime from data concerning crime that occurs when added lighting would make no difference
- presumes, without warrant, that crimes committed at night are more serious than those committed during the day
- judges the plan to be wasteful without weighing the cost of installing and maintaining the additional streetlights
- assumes that the level of available light is the sole factor influencing a criminal's decision to act
- fails to consider that some daytime crimes might also be deterred by the presence of more streetlights
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?