medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Average household income in Greenville has risen steadily for the past five years. Therefore, most families in Greenville are better off financially than they were five years ago.
The argument's reasoning is questionable because it
- infers that a gain registered by an aggregate average must reflect a gain felt by most of the individual households composing it.
- treats how comfortably a family is able to live as a matter settled entirely by the size of that family's income alone.
- draws a firm prediction about the financial future awaiting Greenville families from nothing more than a record of past trends.
- neglects to identify the precise dollar figure by which the average household income across Greenville has climbed over the period.
- overlooks the possibility that the cost of living in Greenville rose faster over those same years than household incomes did.
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