medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Either we must significantly increase the national interest rate or we will face uncontrollable inflation. Since increasing the interest rate would hurt the housing market, we must allow inflation to occur.
The argument is vulnerable to criticism because it
- presents only two courses of action as if no other means of addressing the problem existed.
- criticizes the interest-rate policy instead of confronting the underlying causes of inflation.
- treats an outcome that is merely probable as though it were certain to occur.
- leaves the word 'uncontrollable' undefined in any objectively measurable way.
- assumes that hurting the housing market is always worse than tolerating any level of inflation.
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?