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 any real supporting basis at all, that crimes carried out under cover of night are inherently more serious than those done by day
- faults the plan as wasteful without ever pausing to weigh the projected costs of installing and then later maintaining the proposed extra streetlights
- assumes that the level of available illumination is the single decisive factor that ultimately governs a would-be criminal's eventual decision to act
- overlooks the genuine possibility that a fair number of daytime crimes might themselves also be deterred by installing a set of additional streetlights
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